Did Bush change the reasons for Invasion after the fact?

I suggest the burden of proving or not proving is not mine, and would point out that it has not yet been shown that the rationale changed.

But parados indicated he has more to bring.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

The 20 reasons the Senate gave the president the autorization to wage war are above.

The admin has not swayed from these reasons.

Freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal regime is only one of the 20.

Some of the reasons in hindsight have been proven to be wrong such as WMD. However, WMD represented only 1 of the 20.

New York Times editorial November 15, 2005

"It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections. We need to know how that happened and why.
Mr. Bush said last Friday that he welcomed debate, even in a time of war, but that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." We agree, but it is Mr. Bush and his team who are rewriting history."


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/opinion/15tue1.html?hp

The Time's has reached the conclusion that Bush has consistently changed his rational for going to war.

I submit then the NY TIMES has never read, nor does it intend to read, the Senate resolution. Since when doe fact have any relavence with regard to the NY TIMES?

WMD might be one in twenty but it was said a heck of a lot more times than any other reason and that is the point. Using misleading scare tactics like "mushrooms clouds" was the thing that sold the american people to war and that is the issue which should be debated.

You MAY be correct since apparently most Americans did not think it waws important enough to READ the resolution.

Maybe if they had done so, the public could see through the medias misrepresentations as well as the Govt's "half speak" during the almost 3 years of war.

What was sold to me were the items listed on the resolution, which I still support as a valid reason to go into Iraq intially.

That does not mean I support us still being there or how the war has been executed. Those are different issues.

You've got to be kidding. As I mentioned previously in this thread, of the 24 "whereas" clauses in the resolution, 11 specifically mention weapons of mass destruction, and another 4 mention UN resolutions, which were principally concerned with weapons inspections. That makes 15 of 24 "reasons" that, in one way or another, concern WMDs (most of the rest concern international terrorism).

You criticize the New York Times for failing to read the resolution, but it seems to be you who is unfamiliar with it.

Nice try. Clean your glasses.

Only ONCE did the Resolution refer to the WMD PROGRAM under the 1998 PL 105-235. All other references to WMD related to the use of WMD against other nations and their own people.

Don't twist words and think you can get away with it. You are the fool if you think so, pal.

Who gives a damn if it is a WMD program or a threat that WMD will be used against us or our allies, no matter who made them?

I can't believe you are forwarding your argument, woiyo; at least 10 of the 'whereas' in the resolution deal with WMD issues. It's asinine to pretend otherwise.

Cycloptichorn

And only ONE refers to any current stockpile. I have no argument except to those who want to change the facts.

It doesn't really matter if they refer to any 'current stockpile' or not, does it? They still deal with WMD issues, with WMD being the primary reasoning, whether it is current stockpiles, UN inspectors, future programs, whatever.

Any argument that WMD was not the driving issue of the Iraq war presented to the public is pure bullsh*t.

Cycloptichorn

The FACTS are the Senate Resolution outlined many reason to go to war with the potential threat of a stockpile of WMD being ONE of them. The fact that he HAD them AND used them in the past only made the potential threat more likely.

Yet, the media and the anti GW crowd will not admit to those facts.

Based upon ALL the reason, the Senate properly gave the President the authorization. It is wrong of you to base your conclusion only on one aspect of the entirety.

Truly unbelievable. Only woiyo can take ten* references to weapons of mass destruction and reduce them to one. As Bush the elder might say, that's voodoo math.

Joint Resolution 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 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" (Public Law 105-235);

[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 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;

[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 American 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 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;

[15]Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 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";

[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 (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 of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region...


*I had previously said that there 11 of the 24 "whereas" clauses mentioned WMDs. Actually, it is 10 out of 23. In my defense, I can only say that my math is still better than woiyo's.

Once again, you slant my words which makes YOU a fool.

You are so foolish to even re-post my quote and you still are too stupid to understand the difference between words. You are typical of the anti-Bush crowd and all supporters of the Democratic party.

It is people like you who threaten the future of this nation since you do not have the capability of independent thought, you are the puppet.

YOU do not even show any abiliity to hold your Congressperson responsible for passing this authorization. You blame BUSH for lying? You and your confressperson are the fools.

People like you and even G. Bush and his band of morons will screw this nation.

I will certainly agee with this.

I posted this in the humor section but it bears repeating here, certainly because of the current administration.

FAIR AND BALANCED


God was missing for six days. Eventually, Michael, the archangel, found him, resting on the seventh day. He inquired of God, "Where have you been?"

God sighed a deep sigh of satisfaction, and proudly pointed downwards through the clouds, "Look, Michael. Look what I've made."

Archangel Michael looked puzzled, and said, "What is it?"

"It's a planet," replied God, "And I've put Life on it. I'm going to call it Earth and it's going to be a great place of balance."

"Balance?" inquired Michael, still confused.

God explained, pointing to different parts of earth, "For example, northern Europe will be a place of great opportunity and wealth, while southern Europe is going to be poor. Over there I've placed a continent of white people, and over there is a continent of black people. Balance in all things." God continued pointing to different countries. "This one will be extremely hot, while this one will be very cold and covered in ice."

The Archangel, impressed by God's work, then pointed to a land area and said, "What's that one?"

"Ah," said God, "That's Washington State, the most glorious place on earth. There are beautiful mountains, rivers and streams, lakes, forests, hills, plains, and coulees. The people from Washington State are going to be handsome, modest, intelligent, and humorous, and they are going to be found traveling the world. They will be extremely sociable, hardworking, high achieving, and they will be known throughout the world as diplomats, and carriers of peace."

Michael gasped in wonder and admiration, but then proclaimed, "What about balance, God? You said there would be balance."

God smiled, "There is another Washington...wait until you see the idiots I put there."

The American people were mislead. It is not this statement or that statment, or this resolution or that resolution. The totality of the campaign to invade Iraq is what must be considered. And the conclusion, considering the totality of the events, is inescapable. Th admin was going to do what needed to be done to get us involved in Iraq.

Exactly right, bluesgirl.

You've become completely unhinged, woiyo.