By McClellan's own account he was seldom invited to any briefings, so how does he know that there was misleading Iraqi information?

I don't know whether he would or not, but Kennedy had to "sell" Vietnam too...FDR had to "sell" WWII....to single out one for doing what they all do isn't, well, isn't shall we say, "fair minded"? I am also not saying what Politicians do is right.

__________________
There are those, I know, who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American dream.
~Archibald MacLeish

How the hell should I know...maybe he followed some of the links I provided earlier where they connect the dots.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

~ Pat Paulsen for President

Read Paragraphs 1-4. Paragraph 1 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the terms of Resolution 687 ceasefire agreement. Paragraph 2 gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply. Paragraph 3 stated that - as a necessary component of it's compliance, Iraq had to submit an accurate, full, final and complete declaration of all aspects of it's WMD programmes within 30 days of November 8, 2002. Paragraph 4 stated that any false statements or omissions in this report would constitute an additional material breach of Resolution 687 on the part of Iraq.

Iraq submitted a 12,000 page report that it represented as it's final declaration mandated by Paragraph 3. Dr. Blix studied the Iraqi declaration for a month and a half and presented his assessment of it to the Security Council on January 27, 2003, and according to his testimony, the report was rife with false statements and omissions, thus placing Iraq in contradiction with the terms of Paragraph 4.

I've asked the you question before and I'll ask it again.... how many final opportunities was Iraq supposed to get to comply with Resolution 687?

You rightly point out that according to Paragraph 12, the Security Council was required to convene to consider the situation, but I don't see how this requirement wasn't met. After Dr. Blix's presentation on January 27, the Security Council met 7 times - on February 5, 14, 18, 19 and March 7, 11, and 12 (not counting the meeting on March 19 when hostilities were pretty much a foregone conclusion) to consider the Iraqi situation prior to the initiation of active hostilities. How much consideration do you feel was required on the part of the Security Council to meet it's Paragraph 12 obligation?

Where in Resolution 1441 does it indicate that the Security Council was required to pass any additional Resolutions? All it says is that the Security Council had to meet to consider it's response - not that it had to conclude this meetings with yet another formal resolution. Moreover, and more practically, what would be the wording of this Resolution? I'm not aware of any Security Council Resolution passed since 1946 that didn't include criteria for the target nation to meet to avoid adverse consequences. So what was the Security Council supposed to say? "Iraq, having squandered it's final opportunity to comply, is now a legitmate target for military action... unless it takes advantage of yet another final opportunity to comply"? *L* How ridiculous would that have been?

So, just to be clear, you would have been perfectly happy with a unilateral cessation of hostilities and no formal ceasefire agreement at the end of the Gulf War?

Well, Iraq isn't a NATO operation in the same way Afghanistan is.. but Canada's position was that we weren't going to participate in military action without an explicit Security Council Resolution authorizing use of force - not because it was necessarily required, but because unless there was the international will to pass a Security Council Resolution and to get together another Gulf War-style coalition, going into Iraq probably wasn't a wise course of action at that point in time.

Just in case you missed it, Jet, I haven't said that going into Iraq was a wise idea or a good move - I'm only arguing that it wasn't illegal.

Skewed legal arguments? How so? You know what? You can try to knock holes in my arguments all you want - you can question my reasoning, debate my logic, and counter my facts till the stars stop shining. Bring it on. That's what I'm here for... but I take serious issue with you questioning my honesty. That's beyond the pale.

Spirit of the law vs. letter of the law. That is the question.

I KNOW you argue for the Hobson's choice as a rhetorical argument.


I also know that you think it could have gone different.


THIS is the CENTER of the 'real' discussion.....seriously.

Your quote....
What could have been the alternative to how many final opportunities was Iraq supposed to get to comply with Resolution 687?

For YOU, Cordelier?

Hmmm?

WHAT could it have been?


Enough of your safety on letter of Law.

__________________
The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw.
- Jack Handy

Agreed.

And as I indicated before...apparently as far as concerns the UN...too damn many.

I think they met their obligation, however, and this is where it appears that we differ...they have never made a determination about what to do next...no declaration that codifies the legality of going into Iraq to remove Saddam (please recall that I've not declared the Iraq war Illegal, in fact, per our congress it may be...just that the UN did not provide the authorization).

Agreed regarding that there was no demand for another resolution, however, that likely would have been the format that any declaration of war would have been taken...and none has ever been...it could be concluded that Iraq was a legitimate target and congress apparently determined as such...but the UN hasn't...I'm agreed, a final final final would have been absurd but who can argue that the UN is not a bit of that?

Actually, I was quite upset that we didn't go after Saddam at the time...I have, however, since changed my position after learning that we didn't discourage him from going into Kuwait in the first place and after getting further educated on how we used propaganda to go into a war that never should have been necessary to begin with.

Well, I argued against it before we went into Iraq and it appears that I was right...what I find a bit fascinating though is that you can argue that it was authorized for us to do something that wasn't authorized for you to join us in doing.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

~ Pat Paulsen for President

You conspicuously skipped answering my previous posts showing how Bush knowingly lied about the WMD's and therefore committed a war crime. Anyone who argues the phony legal smokescreen Bush used as cover for his deception is not a devil's advocate but a participant. If you were honest you would have answered the parts that make it indisputable that we don't need to go further and argue the corrupt means Bush used to carry it out.

Opinions aren't facts...and yours are not much more than hate filled little Affirmative Action rants.

__________________
There are those, I know, who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American dream.
~Archibald MacLeish

Jeebus, but Bushbot's are Stupid....