Bush faces new pressure over Iraq

[Spiffarino]

Bush faces new pressure over Iraq

WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush again defended the invasion of Iraq -- one of the key issues in the US presidential election battle -- after UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the war was illegal.

. . .

With new polls showing a close race between Bush and Kerry, the US leader's Iraq policy has again been put in the spotlight by Annan's statement to the BBC that because the UN Security Council did not give explicit approval for the March 2003 invasion: "From the (UN) charter point of view, it was illegal."


At a campaign rally in St Cloud, Minnesota, Bush did not directly mention the comments, but pointedly referred to the unanimous Security Council endorsement in November 2002 of a resolution warning of "serious consequences" if Iraq did not account for its weapons of mass destruction.

. . .

Bush also made no mention of his failure to win UN Security Council support for a second resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force.

[leftchick]

1. "Bush faces new pressure over Iraq"... what a beautiful sight!

and about fucking time!

[wtmusic]

2. "if Iraq did not account for its weapons of mass destruction"

Oh they did? Never mind. Sorry about the war.

[katusha]

3. second UN resolution

isn't that the one where bush lied yet again when he said in that press conference that we would seek a vote, up or down, regardless of support.

still waiting for that vote mr. bush.

[wtmusic]

5. that was also the one where he

"reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq" then invaded 10 days later.

W stands for War Criminal

[katusha]

12. what is sovereignty to bush??? n/t

[murray hill farm]

16. YES!!

"W" stands for War Criminal! That is the best "w" yet! We should repeat that often and loudly!!

[robbedvoter]

13. It was said in a threatening tone too: "Let the world see how they stand

on terra" - with the intent to humiliate those disagreeing with him. Of course, when he said it, he thought the blackmail had worked and the vote was Jebbed.

[tedoll78]

4. Have you noticed lately..

more and more articles are saying things like:
"with new polls showing a close race."

instead of:
"with Bush holding a steady lead.."

I like it!

[Spiffarino]

6. Ooohh, read down the article a little further!

Kerry has rebounded in opinion polls with a more aggressive line on Bush policies, including Iraq. He has accused the president of being dishonest about Iraq, where more than 1,000 US military personnel have now been killed.


Bush took a convincing opinion poll lead of up to 11 percentage points after the Republican convention at the start of September, but a Harris Interactive poll for The Wall Street Journal showed Kerry with 48 percent of the intended vote and Bush with 47 percent.



Muwahahaha...:evilgrin:

[Catfight]

7. Bush is WRONG to go to Iraq. He keeps saying he was right to

go into Iraq, but he was gravely wrong! It was wrong to be hasteful with faulty intelligence. Now there are over 1025 lives lost because of a hasteful decision based on poor intelligence and still, no one has been fired for providing Bush with poor intelligence. Although, he states, "I think I get damn good intelligence." It's time to hold Bush accountable and send him a message, WRONG WAY Mr. Bush, time for a change in leadership.

[jackofhearts]

18. correction catfight...

There 1025 US SOLDIERS dead....there are anywhere from 15000 to 30000 "lives" lost. Please don't disregard the innocent sisters, mothers, brothers and fathers in Iraq. This president is a WAR CRIMINAL responsible for the death and maiming of 10s of 1000s of people. And its not over...there will be more. The bush regime has committed attrocities and murdered innocents. And they have the nerve to ask for our votes. And there is an army of brainwashed christian minions ready to cast a vote for the killers.

bush bombs babies for oil.

[candy331]

8. What the heck is this bodies, can't the man know that every time someone

"I believe when bodies say something, they better mean it," said Bush.
The man doesn't know that every time a body says something it is subject to error/recall since "bodies" do make mistakes/every body except his I guess. (IIC Idiot In Chief

[Spiffarino]

9. Should a body meet a body...

...comin' through the quagmire.

Maybe * was just being poetical or musicious.

[nibbana]

10. Keep the failures of Iraq in the lime light..Don't let Bush hide

This is Rove's strategy..talk terrorism .. not Iraq...we need to keep Bush and Iraq in the same sentence and add failed to it every time we speak..

[Spiffarino]

14. 100 percent correct, Nibbana

BushCo floggers NEVER EVER use the words "Iraq" or "Saddam" without putting "9/11" in the same sentence. This is classic Rove.

Now it's our turn. NEVER say "Iraq" without saying "George Bush" in the same sentence, and throw in a word like "failed" or "quagmire" for good measure.

[Poiuyt]

11. How does he get away with these statements?

"I'd have still made the same decision. America and the world are safer with Saddam Hussein sitting in a prison cell," he said.

"I would have made the same decision because he had the capability of making weapons and he could have passed that capability on to an enemy" like the Al-Qaeda network that carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks, he said.


Linking Saddam and 9/11 again. Why doesn't someone question him about that?

[daleo]

15. Yes, it is a carefully constructed lie again

"...he had the capability of making weapons and he could have passed that capability on to an enemy" like the Al-Qaeda network that carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks..."

Technically, that is true of almost anyone in the world. We all have the capability of making weapons, and we can all pass that capability on to others.

The key questions should be:
1) Does someone or some group have the capability of making weapons of mass destruction?
2) Are they able to pass that capability on to someone or some group that doesn't already possess that capability?
3) Are they very likely to do so?
4) Have they already done so?
5) Is that group very likely to be a threat?

Going to war should require an affirmative to most of these questions, and probably all five. Bush's criteria for war has no real restrictions at all.

[dolstein]

17. Sorry, but Annan is doing Bush a HUGE favor

by playing into the Bush camp's argument that Kerry is just another weak liberal who would give the UN a veto over America's foreign policy. And the sad fact is that many liberals actually believe the UN ought to have a veto.

[gratuitous]

19. A sad fact?

The sad fact is that the United States, for all its vaunted weaponry, doesn't know how to use its power responsibly. Time after time since 1945, the United States has misused and abused its position in the world, usually with impunity, and people all over the world have paid a sorry price.

George W. Bush is simply the latest manifestation of a mindset that boils down to might makes right. Perhaps that mindset is something endemic to all humanity, but its presence in the United States and its leaders is cruelly unfortunate for a large segment of the world's population due to the country's unparalleled power.

Bush clearly couldn't make the case for his invasion without domination of the mass media, and in countries where his administration didn't have willing helpers in the media, the people of those countries were overwhelmingly against this exercise of imperial power. And even in his own country, Bush was opposed by at least half the populace, but he knew he could safely ignore their wishes.

Those are some sad facts. And thousands of people have paid for them with their lives.

[lynx rufus]

20. Put the crack pipe down!

The UN should absolutely have a veto over US foreign policy.
Look at the money we waste on israel. The UN would stop that shit
real fast.

[Jacobin]

21. Glorp

Um, they did have a veto and had Bush gone forward with the second vote (which he pledged to do in a nationwide, primetime speech), they WOULD have vetoed it. Knowing that the resolution would be vetoed, Bush* WITHDREW the resolution and went to war anyway.

Yeah, the UN can veto, but countries can break the UN charter and do what they want anyway, if they are willing to accept the consequences, which we are now reaping.

[The_Casual_Observer]

22. He knew he would lose the vote, so he let it go

and started the invasion a few days later instead. Time was running out for them. The inspections had turned up nothing, and the Iraqis were frantically trying to meet the deadline for the distruction of the "long range" missles, it was getting close to summer, and he had 200,000 people standing around in Kuwait with nothing to do for the previous 6 months.

[gratuitous]

24. Hello?

Response?

[Cronus Protagonist]

23. Here's a direct quote from Chirac on the same subject

http://bushspeaks.com/home.asp?did=127