US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

So then, nothing new there, eh?

We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

Tonight we are a country awakened to danger.

Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.

This is civilization's fight.

The pre-9/11 draft presidential directive on al Qaeda evolved into a new directive, National Security Presidential Directive 9, now titled "Defeating the Terrorist Threat to the United States." The directive would now extend to a global war on terrorism, not just on al Qaeda. It also incorporated the President's determination not to distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them. It included a determination to use military force if necessary to end al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan. The new directive -- formally signed on October 25, after the fighting in Afghanistan had already begun -- included new material followed by annexes discussing each targeted terrorist group. The old draft directive on al Qaeda became, in effect, the first annex. The United States would strive to eliminate all terrorist networks, dry up their financial support, and prevent them from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The goal was the "elimination of terrorism as a threat to our way of life."

www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Public Law 107-243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
Oct. 16, 2002
(H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq
(1) Whereas 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;

(2) Whereas 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;

(3) Whereas 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;

(4) Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, 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;

(5) Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 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';

(6) Whereas 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;

(7) Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution 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;

(8) Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

(9) Whereas 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;

(10) Whereas 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;

(11) Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

(12) Whereas 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;

(13) Whereas 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;

(14) Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) 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 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

(15) Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress 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 Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;

(16) Whereas 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 (Public Law 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';

(17) Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 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;

(18) Whereas 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';

(19)Whereas 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;

(20) Whereas 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;

(21) Whereas 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;

(22) Whereas 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 (Public Law 107-40); and,

(23) Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Now therefore be it,

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
50 USC 1541 note.

Bite me, Ican . . . i lost all interest in your obsessive fantasies a long time ago . . . you ought properly to be embarrassed not to have realized the extent to which you are despised here for your delusions and your obsessive repetition of crap which has never convinced anyone here . . .

georgeob1 wrote:

The noble republic was Plato's fantasy. He was no democrat.

I agree. I am just somewhat bemused by the odd priorities the American body politic is reveling here. When a president has oral sex with an intern and lies about it under oath, a grand jury investigates whether he should be impeached. When thugs associated with people associated with the president break into the opposition's headquarters and the president covers it up, he eventually resigns, knowing that he would be impeached if he didn't. But when presidents go to war on a casus belli they lied about, then harrass the people who expose their lies, as both Johnson and Bush did? Ah well, no republic is perfect, and hardball politics will be hardball politics. It almost appears as if some presidential conduct is too bad to be worthy of impeachment.

come off it George

Lying to take the country into war is several orders magnitude more of a lie than lying about private and legal sexual activity.

The problem for Clinton and Bush is that both have been rumbled. IT seems obvious to me that Bush is in much the deeper trouble.

...

As for Clinton and what is or is not illegal for the Governor of Arkansas, your remark is technically libelous--he has not been even charged with such an offense, let alone convicted.

...

What a blithering idiocy . . . Steve characterized Blair and the Shrub as liars . . . i said, so nothing new, eh? ...

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, participa--tory 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.

What a blithering idiocy . . . Steve characterized Blair and the Shrub as liars . . . i said, so nothing new, eh? ...

A booklet by the Pakistani jihadist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (Army of the Pure), believed to be linked to the recent London bombings, declares
the U.S., Israel and India as existential enemies of Islam and lists eight reasons for global jihad. These include the restoration of Islamic sovereignty to all lands where Muslims were once ascendant, including Spain, "Bulgaria, Hungary, Cyprus, Sicily, Ethiopia, Russian Turkistan and Chinese Turkistan. . . Even parts of France reaching 90 kilometers outside Paris." Blaming the U.S. for the delusions of these admittedly small groups confers a degree of legitimacy on Islamist extremists and undermines moderate Muslim struggling for the soul of their faith.

What a blithering idiocy . . . Steve characterized Blair and the Shrub as liars . . . i said, so nothing new, eh? ...

www.internationalinvestigators.com

LEADERSHIP: Al Qaeda's Plan for World Conquest

September 1, 2005: Al Qaeda has a plan, and it's been published in a
book (Al-Zarqawi: al Qaeda's Second Generation) by Jordanian journalist,
Fouad Hussein. Several al Qaeda leaders were interviewed for the book,
including al Qaeda's man in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The book is
only available in Arabic, but it does lay out a very straightforward
strategy for world conquest. Actually, it sounds a lot like what the nazis
and communists had in mind last century. The only difference is that,
while the nazis killed you for who you were, and the communists killed
you for what you believed, al Qaeda kills you for religious differences.
No matter which zealot gets you, you're still dead.

According to Fouad Hussein, al Qaeda has a seven phase plan for world
conquest. It goes like this.

Phase 1, the "wakeup call." Spectacular terrorist attacks on the West
(like September 11, 2001) get the infidels (non-Moslems) to make war on
Islamic nations. This arouses Moslems, and causes them to flock to al
Qaedas banner. This phase is considered complete.

Phase 2, the "eye opening." This is the phase we are in, where al Qaeda
does battle with the infidels, and shows over a billion Moslems how
it's done. This phase is supposed to be completed by next year.

Phase 3, "the rising." Millions of aroused (in a terrorist sense)
Moslems go to war against Islam's enemies for the rest of the decade.
Especially heavy attacks are made against Israel. It is believed that
major
damage in Israel will force the world to acknowledge al Qaeda as a major
power, and negotiate with it.

Phase 4, "the downfall." By 2013, al Qaeda will control the Persian
Gulf, and all its oil, as well as most of the Middle East. This will
enable al Qaeda to cripple the American economy, and American military
power.

Phase 5, "the Caliphate." By 2016, the Caliphate (one government for
all Moslem nations) will be established. At this point, nearly all
Western cultural influences will be eliminated from Islamic nations. The
Caliphate will organize a mighty army for the next phase.

Phase 6, "world conquest." By 2022, the rest of the world will be
conquered by the righteous and unstoppable armies of Islam. This is the
phase that Osama bin Laden has been talking about for years.

Phase 7, "final victory." All the world's inhabitants will be forced to
either convert to Islam, or submit (as second class citizens) to
Islamic rule. This will be completed by 2025 or thereabouts.

Nothing really new in all this. Al Qaeda has been talking openly about
this (the global Islamic state) for years. These Islamic terrorists are
true believers. God is on their side, and they believe all obstacles
will be swept aside by the power of the Lord. Will al Qaeda's plan work?
Ask the nazis and communists.

What a blithering idiocy . . . Steve characterized Blair and the Shrub as liars . . . i said, so nothing new, eh? ...

www.dni.gov/release_letter_101105.html
Letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi, October 11, 2005
ODNI News Release No. 2-05

Today the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a letter between two senior al Qa'ida leaders, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, that was obtained during counterterrorism operations in Iraq. This lengthy document provides a comprehensive view of al Qa'ida's strategy in Iraq and globally.

The letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi is dated July 9, 2005. The contents were released only after assurances that no ongoing intelligence or military operations would be affected by making this document public.

The document has not been edited in any way and is released in its entirety in both the Arabic and English translated forms. The United States Government has the highest confidence in the letter's authenticity.

Al-Zawahiri's letter offers a strategic vision for al Qa'ida's direction for Iraq and beyond, and portrays al Qa'ida's senior leadership's isolation and dependence.

Among the letter's highlights are discussions indicating:

The centrality of the war in Iraq for the global jihad.

From al Qa'ida's point of view, the war does not end with an American departure.

An acknowledgment of the appeal of democracy to the Iraqis.

The strategic vision of inevitable conflict, with a tacit recognition of current political dynamics in Iraq; with a call by al-Zawahiri for political action equal to military action.

The need to maintain popular support at least until jihadist rule has been established.

Admission that more than half the struggle is taking place "in the battlefield of the media."


Letter in English
www.dni.gov/letter_in_english.pdf

What a blithering idiocy . . . Steve characterized Blair and the Shrub as liars . . . i said, so nothing new, eh? ...

If you are going to puke up crap about FDR "systematically deceiv[ing] the American people," you need to be able to substantiate such an egregious example of conspiracy paranoia. As for Clinton and what is or is not illegal for the Governor of Arkansas, your remark is technically libelous--he has not been even charged with such an offense, let alone convicted.

Iraq war has exposed us to terror at home, says Meyer

Ewen MacAskill and Julian Glover
Saturday November 5, 2005
The Guardian


Britain's former ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, delivers a damaging critique of Tony Blair's approach to the war in Iraq in an interview in the Guardian today.

Sir Christopher, who had a ringside seat in the decision-making that led to the war, unfavourably contrasts Mr Blair with the boldness and attention to detail of Margaret Thatcher. He says Lady Thatcher took pride in knowing more detail than her officials. "That is why it was terrifying to be summoned into her presence because if you did not know your stuff, she would expose you. There was never that danger with Tony Blair."

He takes issue with the prime minister's claim that the war has not exposed Britain to terrorist attacks: "There is plenty of evidence around at the moment that home-grown terrorism was partly radicalised and fuelled by what is going on in Iraq. There is no way we can credibly get up and say it has nothing to do with it. Don't tell me that being in Iraq has got nothing to do with it. Of course it does."
Sir Christopher gave the interview to mark the publication of DC Confidential, the first account by an insider of the decision-making that led to war, to be serialised in the Guardian from Monday.

Unusually for a diplomat, his account is revealing about a host of cabinet ministers who passed through the Washington embassy, such as John Prescott and Jack Straw, and exposes the vanities of advisers such as Lord Levy, Mr Blair's Middle East envoy.

But the part of the book which will attract the most attention concerns Mr Blair and his dealings with George Bush in the run-up to war. He portrays the PM as a man of moral and philosophical certitude but not overly interested in the nitty-gritty of policy. In the interview, he says it would be wrong to see Mr Blair as "an empty vessel". He adds: "By God, in British politics, when on top of his game, his speeches are incredible."

Sir Christopher, who supported the war, sat in on the crucial meetings between Mr Blair and Mr Bush, reading transcripts of their private phone calls and regularly meeting figures such as Dick Cheney, the vice-president, and Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary.

He reveals that the Foreign Office, which raised doubts about the wisdom of the war, had been even more marginalised by Downing Street than had until now been realised. He said he dealt almost exclusively with Downing Street in the 18 months before the war and could recall few, if any, phone calls with the Foreign Office in that time.

Sir Christopher said he had reflected hard on his time in Washington and its influence on the Iraq war. Although he supported the war and still feels it was right in principle, he now believes that much could have been done differently.

- I merely stated a verifiable fact - it is indeed illegal for a Governor of Arkansas to induce an employee of the State into a sexual liaision