Censure, anyone?

Once again we see just how much liberals are committed to winning the war on terror: doing what it takes to win is considered "bad form".

Try fighting for the good guys sometime.

End justifies the means, Al? I don't think so. You do that, you throw out the entire bill of rights. Oh, yeah, forgot, that's already been done, by your hero.

moe,
Al is conflating the war on terror with Saddam. Bush said recently that he never stated Saddam had anything to do with al-queda. Guess Al didn't get the memo. Not that consistency matters.

Can we impeach that motherfucker yet?

Didn't Kevin post about this a while ago and comment "10 bucks says the UN flight was Cheney's idea?" How long has this memo been kicking about, because none of these details seem new to this blog.

Provoking a war with an uninvolved party is "what it takes to win" the war on terror? What a unique perspective. Al is the kind of guy who goes home and kicks his dog after he gets intimidated by tough-looking kids at the 7-11.

Singularity,
Only if it's a little dog that won't fight back.

There are two kinds of Americans

Those who want to find the most effective way to protect this country from those who would do us harm

And those for whom the primary goal is defending George W. Bush no matter how much harm he is doing to our nation

AI belongs to the latter group

frankly0 >"Censure, anyone?"

Yea, get out the wet noodles and prepare to whip POTUS

Absurd

Impeach them all & let the Gods sort it all out

Censure my a**

Whimps !

"...This is not a game." - Lorie Van Auken (2001.09.11 widow)

New England's impeachment belt.

Thirty miles north, residents in four Vermont villages voted earlier this month at annual town meetings to buy more rock salt, approve school budgets, and impeach the president for lying about Iraq...

I don't know whether to be horrified, sad, ashamed for the US or... simply exhausted.

Further evidence that George Bush is a lying, incompetent piece of s*** idiot and will it make any difference?

So time to cue the conservative chorus..."The liberals don't want to win this war."

And cue the liberal leadership chorus...."We don't want to censure Bush. We don't want to seem unpatriotic. We don't want to offend anyone. We just want to win gosh-darn elections, pretty please, why don't you like us?"

With a special Pat Roberts solo: "My eyes are shut, I won't open them. George Bush can do no wrong."

It's interesting to think what would've happened if the fake flight had taken place. I mean, once we all found out about it, as we inevitably would have.

I mean, once we all found out about it, as we inevitably would have.

The Wurlitzer would have loudly accused anyone bringing it up of being objectively pro-terrorist. The Al's of the world would be leaping to the defense of the administration with the same bullshit we get from trolls here.

nothing would be any different ... we'd still have the same cowardly pussies telling us that instigating illegal wars of aggression and creating more terrorists is somehow more productive than actually catching the existing ones.

Why do liberals hate America so much? Bush is only defending America from our enemies.

Why didn't he just assassinate SH? Would have been much cheaper.

Monkey:

You'd be against assassinating Saddam Insane too, hyprocrite. You mofo.

I often wonder if the als, donkey courages, and McAs of this world were already cowardly pussies prior to 9/11, or if that day just unmanned them so.

ITMFA !

I'm pretty sure this is old (by Internet standards) news. The bit about getting a "UN" plane shot down was in the original stories when the memo first was revealed.

I'm not sure I get the significance of the UN-painted plane plan. Bush and Blair had been bombing Iraq for years, claiming they were doing it under UN authority. Iraq routinely fired missiles at planes enforcing the UN-mandated "no fly" zones. Why would Bush feel he needed a UN-painted plane? If Iraq's shooting at US and British UN-sanctioned planes was casus belli, then the US had that already many times over.

If Bush suddenly felt UN colors were needed on planes flying over Iraq, then that would constitute addmission that the US/British bombing of radars had been illegal.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but after you read that how sure can you be that 9/11 wasn't a CIA/NSA/Mossad/whatever scheme?

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

-- George W. Bush (August 5, 2004)

Yawn.

You're still late to the party, Drum.

The article also said Saddam refused to disarm. He said he had no WMDs.

Turns out that was correct.

And he was slicing up missiles.

Were they expecting him to slice off his own arms? What arms did they ask him to surrender that he didn't?

Worst.President.Ever.

And a liar deluxe to boot!

Did the R's anticipate this asshole and burn the impeachment card over a blowjob on purpose? One wonders...If one is slightly paranoid...

Ummm... What's your point? There's nothing wrong with any of that.

No lying was involved.

"No lying":

"This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost, and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause..."
- President Bush's State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

"Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation.... 'The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours,' the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. 'If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.'"
- NY Times story on memo of meeting between Blair and Bush on Jan. 31, 2003

I would say that saying you "seek peace", that war would only be a last resort if Saddam Hussein failed to provide conclusive proof of having disarmed, while simultaneously seeking ways to trick Saddam Hussein into attacking you, seeking a provocation for the war you tell your allies, in secret, you intend to carry out - I would say that constitutes "lying". It's the kind of lying that goes on routinely in the worlds of politics and business, but it's still lying.

Wait. Who said the defector was a liar. Just Kevin.

Plus wasn't there a no-fly zone under UN sanction.
That means the airforce could be painted in UN sanctions and it'd be legal.

Another great hack-job on the facts by Kevin Drum.

Fighting terrorism is not the opposite of the rule of law; in fact, the two go together.

would say that saying you "seek peace", that war would only be a last resort if Saddam Hussein

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 27, 2006 at 5:43 AM | PERMALINK

By then he had already failed to provide conclusive proof, just looking for a clearer excuse for PR points. If Turkey participated it would have been a faster invasion.

The Iraq no-fly zone was a creation of the British and American governments, operated since the Coalition pushed Iraqi forces out of Kuwait in 1991. The no-fly zone had nothing to do with the UN which neither authorised it or tried to prevent the two governments from operating it.

The provocation flight was a looney-tunes idea anyway. If the "UN" plane was shot at, what happens when the UN asks who authorised the flight? When it turns out that no-one in the UN did so, the spotlight would turn on the only country with U-2s, i.e. the US.

I wish Al and the other right-wing loonies would get it through their head that Bush wanted to invade Iraq before there was any “war on terror”. And second (and a couple posters have already made this point) the invasion of Iraq was a distraction from what should have been our goal of eliminating al-Qaeda, and most importantly, Osama bin Laden, after 9-11. He’s still alive, Al, and he is making audiotapes mocking your hero on a regular basis. Yeah, Bush is real “tough on terror”. NOT!!!

I guess that whatever our political views can be, we can acknowledge that American credibility has been shattered due to the president’s policy, which was unfortunately based on false premises. If there were WMD why they were not used by Saddam?! If there were WMD, why American forces have been unable to find any of them despite the fact that they have been in Iraq for more than three years now?! Looks like the toppling of Saddam is the only gain that has been achieved so far. Toppling of American credibility, its authority and rising military Islamist Anti-Americanism are other more negative and very serious consequences of current crisis.

Well, gee. According the translations of Iraqi internal documents.

1) There weren't any
2) They knew they could rebuild them all quickly anyway and were planning to

However, at the end of the day - enforcing WMD non-proliferation will involve invading a few bluffers.

Losing soldier's lives to WMD in use is stupid.
The time to invade is before they have 'em.

Yes, true. Americans are hated. Like you were when they 9-11'd you. And when you invaded Afghanistan. Like that's changed.

At least now you have a kick ass rep.

The world will never love a hyper-power. Just hope to be feared/respected enough not to bullied.

Why can't you get over Vietnam? Vietnam has and is making Nike's.

Fuck Cnesure. We've been well into high crimes and treason for quite some time now.

"Good Guys" = War profiteers and Oil Cabals

Same old story.

Yet, Kevin doubts that Bush lied about WMD. Go figure.

All Hail the Liar-in-Chief!

even with info like this he's still going to drag the us of a down the drain, what a piece of shit he is

If this is true, it certainly re-frames all of Bush's recent assertions that he never wanted to go to war. Not only is he a pathological liar, but the whole folksy gosh-I'm-just-trying-to-protect-the-American-people schtick is just a put-on. There have been times when I thought at least he believes his own bullshit.

I've been wondering about Blair's motives in all this. Calling him "Bush's poodle," though fair enough, doesn't really seem to explain his absolutely unblinking support for a war whose rationale had turned to shit months before it started. Bush is stupid, so stupid he has no conception of how far he is from understanding anything at all about Iraq or the Middle East or anything else to do with foreign affairs. Blair is not stupid. I'm starting to wonder if, beyond his well-publicized piety, he is not secretly an outright religious fanatic of the Apocalypse/Rapture stripe.

McAnus: Yes, true. Americans are hated. Like you were when they 9-11'd you. And when you invaded Afghanistan. Like that's changed. ...At least now you have a kick ass rep.

Yeah, Dubya isthe kickass rep for incompetents, idiots, and liars. Maybe that's why you have such an affinity for him.

NYTimes [with emphasis]: Mr. Bush predicted that it was unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups. Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

Doh-dee-doh-doh-doh Dubya followed faithfully by his poodle. You know, given Dubya above prediction, I'm beginning to think that Pat Robertson's no casualties remark was true!

"Why can't you get over Vietnam? Vietnam has and is making Nike's."~McA

Just as they would have been doing if we had stayed home.
By the same token, Iraq will be a place of sectarian conflict, Islamic fundamentalism, and strong-man rule within a few years of our leaving.

No lying was involved.

My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq...
George W. Bush, March 19, 2003

Squeaky Rat: Blair is not stupid. I'm starting to wonder if, beyond his well-publicized piety, he is not secretly an outright religious fanatic of the Apocalypse/Rapture stripe.

Hmmm...Good point. Repub strategist Kevin Phillips might agree.

Well Squeaky rat, if Blair is not stupid and there is any truth to your statement, then he is merely imbalanced and suffers from some acute mental disorder as many do in this American/Anglo Cabal. Stupid or insane, not much recourse either way. What I do think is we have the last gasp of the old Anglo-Empire realizing they truly no longer control the world in the grand fashion that they once were able. And that alone may cause fits of well deserved paranoia. If we get through this crisis time and the dick heads do not blow up the place, we may move beyond the old world order and establish some progressive economic paradigms. I am certain there is the global will , and mission effort of many highly intelligent institutions and individuals to do so. Whether they get by the old King makers will be the 64 million dollar question.

Additional details? Sounds pretty much like the bullshit tripe thats been paraded on this blog for four years now. Stuck on stupid.

"The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam's W.M.D," referring to weapons of mass destruction.

Off in Wingnutistan, they've been doing just this lately, with a former Iraqi officer saying that Saddam gave all his weapons to his mortal enemy the Syria Baathists to hold for him. They've been pushing this heavily for the last 2-3 months. Especially Rep Welden.

All the little weak panty waist liberals are still fretting over a meeting between Blair and Bush that they have contrived in their wooden little heads and that happened four years ago. And then they blame the conservatives for brining up Clintons lies and fallacies. These fucktwits don't have the common sense to get out of their own way. No wonder they represent just 6% of the minority party and are positioned to lose yet another election.

BTW, don't you find it hysterical that they have been telling us that GW is losing ground with the voters since '00, and yet in '04 he won by a larger margin than he did in '00. They have a tepid grasp on reality. Of course when your head is firmly planted in your ass it begins to smell like Howard Dean.

Bush and Blair conspire.
We don't need no steenking facts.
"Fuck Saddam." Invade!

Clinton, penis, Clinton, Koresh, duuuuuhhhhhhrrrr...

Liberals seem to think it's the Christian theocracy in America they have to worry about so they don't actually have to worry about the REAL problem, the Islamic theocracy. Again that tepid grip on reality.

You can't win this hugs and understanding losers. But if you tried to hug a christian, that might work, but careful, you might get all of that heterosexual moral stuff on you. Yikes!

Apollo, your debating skills are above average for a liberal loser, well done!

George W. Bush has a 36% approval rating, he's the greatest and most popular president ever and all you liberals are just JEALOUS!

duuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrrrr...DUUUUUHHHHRRRRR...

This little US adventure seems only to be going from bad to worse.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - "A suicide bomber attacked an Iraqi army recruiting center Monday in northern Iraq, killing at least 30 people and wounding 30 others, the Iraqi military said. A top Iraqi official denounced the United States over a raid that Shiites said killed worshippers in a mosque. Although the United States said no mosque was attacked, Shiites blamed the military for killing 22 people Sunday and cut off political talks in protest. Jawad al-Maliki, a lawmaker from the United Iraqi Alliance, said the Shiite bloc had canceled Monday's session of negotiations to form a new government because of the raid."

You know who was another great American hero and pillar of morality? David Koresh.

Stop it, Apollo! Over the weekend, I made a resolution to spend less time on blogs. You know what haikus do to me!

Shut up Botecelli, you're just focusing on the negative, while ignoring the fact that Iraq is becoming a bastion of Jeffersonian Democracy in the Middle East. You can't see it because you're an America-hating liberal who want us to lose.

But I know better, because the real patriots at LGF told me so!

Yes you are right "jay" I will switch the dial over to Laura Ingraham's show ... Ah that's much better.

What a shock, another bomb goes off and the liberals declare defeat, yet the Iraqi's continue to line up and volunteer for the military/security forces.

Can we trade all of the loser liberals for the good people of Iraq? That's the perfect solution. The good people of Iraq will get to enjoy freedom, what they have been working so hard for and risked their lives for when they went to the polls. And the liberals will get to be bitch slapped and beheaded nearly everyday for taking freedom for granted and for not realizing the Islamic Theocrats want to kill you. The libs will get to finally fulfill their ultimate dream of being a self loathing submissive victims.

Sorry, shortstop. : )

Bullshit tripe! Fuckwits!
Jay is just here to divert.
Insults aren't debate.

NYTimes: [President Bush] spoke of the "dilemma of managing the transition to the civil administration," the memo says.

And yet Dubya lacked plans for a post-war Iraq ! He had a timetable to meet for invasion. Ah, but no timetable on withdrawal or an exit strategy. Doh-dee-doh-doh-doh.

I haven't a brain, therefore I am liberal.

It isn't important to have a plan, what is important is to continue to tell people that they need the government and the liberal intellectually elite to survive. There is no way people can actually think for themselves without the liberal left telling them what's important and what the polls tell us to do.

All hail the mighty polls.

> At lease now America has a kick-ass rep!
> Do what it takes to win!
> Mom made Frito pie!

Kevin, how do they find, you?

Please, please, please send better trolls to this site.

Careful Boticelli, the liberals wouldn't like you straying from the reservation and actually finding out something else about Iraq other than IED explosions.

How about a "Brokeback" haiku shorty. That would get us both hot.

The insurgents can tell which people are conservative and liberal, and which ones to kidnap and behead. Laura Ingraham told me this after she visited Iraq and travelled around with a heavy military guard.

That's just another sign of success, not being able to travel anywhere in the country without a military escort. Although I don't have firsthand knowledge, since I'm too much of a fat pussy to actually fight over there. But my LGF and Pajamaline sources tell me I'm right.

A bunch of people voted for a government that isn't doing anything, and they're volunteering to be in the military and police and get blown up by IEDs. Success! At least they've got balls, unlike me.

Oh, and I'm still a self-hating homosexual. You lieberals will never drag me out of the closet.

During a private two-hour meeting...

Just how "private" was this meeting?

The real question is why the fuck you losers aren't over there. I am 58 years old and was enlisted in the draft for Vietnam but was never selected, so at the very least I offered my services. What have you fucktwits done? Won't get off your ass to help others free themselves from oppression and better their lives, but then want everyone here to help pay their medical bills. Is that it? Really impressive.

I am 58 years old

No, really, I don't believe that. Subtract 40 years from the total, maybe I'd buy it. But the thought of such lame juvenile spewings emanating from someone almost 60 years old makes me weep for my country.

Cut 'N Run Jay: I am 58 years old and was enlisted in the draft for Vietnam but was never selected, so at the very least I offered my services.

"Enlisted in the draft"? "Offered my services"?

Fucking cowardly scumbag. Too think that some other brave American died in Vietnam so this hate-filled, spittle-flecked physical coward could stay at home.

I was 4F so I couldn't even get VA benefits to put me in a better psych ward than this one. Motherfuckers!

That Bush and Blair lied about WMD is a given. That they intended to invade Iraq no matter what is a given. Arguing this is a waste of air and bandwidth. The real question is: why? There is remarkably little energy given to this. Anyone but a drooling idiot knows, at this point, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. B&B knew this, too. Given all that they knew - why did they decide to invade Iraq? What were the main reasons? All other questions regarding Iraq are missing the point.

What's astonishing to me is the lengths to which the wingnuts will go in their defense of Bush's clearly disastrous policies.

Yes, the "UN plane" story is old news; its only value these days might be if it serves to pry open the dank vaults of wingnut thinking, perhaps bringing a little light to where none has shone before.

It's more than clear to anyone who bothers to pay attention that the war in Iraq was based on phenomenal incompetence at best, and outright lying at worst. It's blatantly obvious to all thinking people that the war has all along been a major distraction from the real tasks of minimising terror attacks globally and bringing the actual perpetrators of 9/11 to justice (or death).

Yet the radical fascists who masquerade as "conservatives", represented intellectually by the trolls who pollute this thread, continue to swagger along, believing that everything is hunky-dory. Boggles the mind.

Red State Mike: Just how "private" was this meeting?

As stated in the NYT article:

David Manning...wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

The meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Blair, attended by six close aides...

I weep for the country every time you post Greggy, so right back at you fucktwit.

Shit-for-brains Stefan:
Vietnam was a war inspired by the democrats. The country lost over 150,000 brave men and women, while you sat on your ass, and accomplished shit.

In Iraq we have only lost 2200 brave men and women and have established a freely elected government, trained and 200,000+ military and security force and have put Saddam on trial.

How does it feel to be a loser every single fucking of your pathetic life?

Yep. Faulty intelligence! Thanks to the non-stop Psyops that is the Bush administration, Congress and the US citizenry didn't know that Bush was lying about everything.

Lots of us fully suspected it was a crock, but there was no proof. Scott Ritter had the WMD angle nailed, but he was painted as a crazy man.

Freedom is on the march! Tell that to the kids in Iraq whose teacher was beheaded in their classroom last week.

ExBrit (or ExBrains), there is a little thing called a cease-fire agreement that was signed by Saddam in which he agreed to 17 UN resolutions. The allies reserved the right to continue hostilities towards the Iraqi regime if any one of those resolutions were violated. EVERY single resolution was violated.

Now the question for the "drooling idiots" is: should UN resoltuions matter?

Or have you conveniently forgotten that "other" little reason for war?

NYTimes: During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003...

Hmmm, I wonder if they also discussed the ongoing bombing of Iraq that had begun in 2002. Courtesy Shakespeare Sister from the UK's, The Sunday Times:

A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war “to put pressure on the regime” was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice.

The advice was first provided to senior ministers in March 2002. Two months later RAF and USAF jets began “spikes of activity” designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating and giving the allies a pretext for war.

The Foreign Office advice shows military action to pressurise the regime was “not consistent with” UN law, despite American claims that it was.

[…]

Further intensification of the bombing, known in the Pentagon as the Blue Plan, began at the end of August, 2002, following a meeting of the US National Security Council at the White House that month.

General Tommy Franks, the allied commander, recalled in his autobiography, American Soldier, that during this meeting he rejected a call from Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, to cut the bombing patrols because he wanted to use them to make Iraq’s defences “as weak as possible”.

The allied commander specifically used the term “spikes of activity” in his book. The upgrade to a full air war was also illegal, said Goodhart. “If, as Franks seems to suggest, the purpose was to soften up Iraq for a future invasion or even to intimidate Iraq, the coalition forces were acting without lawful authority,” he said.

Although the legality of the war has been more of an issue in Britain than in America, the revelations indicate Bush may also have acted illegally, since Congress did not authorise military action until October 11 2002.

The air war had already begun six weeks earlier and the spikes of activity had been underway for five months.

I have it on good authority from Stefan's girlfriend that during "every single fucking," he's far from a loser. Carry on, sentient beings.

Is violating UN resolutions illegal?

Vietnam was a war inspired by the democrats.

The first US forces in Vietnam were put there by the Republican Eisenhower Administration. While the war was also fought by the Democrats under Kennedy and Johnson, I don't recall the Republicans opposing it -- quite the opposite, in fact.

The country lost over 150,000 brave men and women,

50,000, not 150,000.

while you sat on your ass, and accomplished shit.

Since I was a baby at the time, that's actually quite true.

This meeting was apparently the one after Blair told Bush that 1) James Bond does in fact not exist and British agents are not willing to sneak into Iraq with a russian scud and fire it at Tel Aviv, and 2) He (Bush) clearly did not understand the dominant motif of Ian Fleming's novels as iniating wars through deception was clearly the role of deranged media moguls and not James Bond.

Is violating UN resolutions illegal?

Whether nor not Iraq violated UN resolutions does not give the US any authority to invade Iraq to enforce them.

The first Gulf War ended when Iraq formally accepted U.N. Security Council Resolution 686, which resolution required Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. Resolution 687 was adopted by the Security Council a month later and said that "a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait."

Even though this second resolution required Iraq to disarm it did not give a blank check to the U.S. or any other nation to resume war against Iraq. The resolution authorized only the Security Council, and not individual states, to take any necessary action, as when it stated the Security Council resolved "to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area." The United States, acting on its own, has no authority, either explicit or inherent, to enforce Security Council resolutions under the cease-fire.

The memo must be a fraud. President Bush has made it very clear that he did not want war.

HELEN THOMAS: I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I think your premise, in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist, is that, you know, I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --

Is violating UN resolutions illegal?

Stefan,
What Jay is trying to say is that the U.S. and the UK acted illegally like Saddam did. Quite an admission even for a Bushtard.

Over 58,000 deaths in Vietnam, my bad. But still a completely ineffective effort.

Eisenhower died in April 1945. Truman was the first to establish troop presence in Vietnam later that year. And Kennedy bolstered that presence and initiated hostilities.

The cease fire agreement clearly stated that the allies reserved the right to continue hostilities towards the Iraqi regime if any of the resolutions were violated. Resolution 1441 went further and stated that Saddam become completely transparent or face serious consequnces.

Again, does the UN and their mandates matter?

Apollo, the UK and the US had every right to continue hostilities towards a hostile regime.

Eisenhower died in April 1945.

Which might explain his somewhat low-key demeanor as President from 1953 through 1961.

Downing Street memos.
Intel fixed to fit war plans.
Bush wanted Saddam.

He tried to kill Dad!
Dubya plotted. Get even!
Bush grudge. People die.

Jay, "Again, does the UN and their mandates matter?"

I suppose not, as you can see from below (sorry for the length)

Resolution 252 (1968) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon.

262 (1968) Israel
Calls upon Israel to pay compensation to Lebanon for destruction of airliners at Beirut International Airport.

267 (1969) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

271 (1969) Israel
Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers.

298 (1971) Israel
Reiterates demand that Israel rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

353 (1974) Turkey
Calls on nations to respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Cyprus and for the withdrawal without delay of foreign troops from Cyprus.

354 (1974) Turkey
Reiterates provisions of UNSC resolution 353.

360 (1974) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus "without delay."

364 (1974) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

367 (1975) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

370 (1975) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

377 (1979) Morocco
Calls on countries to respect the right of self-determination for Western Sahara.

379 (1979) Morocco
Calls for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Western Sahara.

380 (1979) Morocco
Reiterates the need for compliance with previous resolutions.

391 (1976) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

401 (1976) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

414 (1977) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

422 (1977) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

440 (1978) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

446 (1979) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and "in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories."

452 (1979) Israel
Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

465 (1980) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions on Israel's settlements policy.

471 (1980) Israel
Demands prosecution of those involved in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders and compensation for damages; reiterates demands to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention.

484 (1980) Israel
Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

487 (1981) Israel
Calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.

497 (1981) Israel
Demands that Israel rescind its decision to impose its domestic laws in the occupied Syrian Golan region.

541 (1983) Turkey
Reiterates the need for compliance with prior resolutions and demands that the declaration of an independent Turkish Cypriot state be withdrawn.

550 (1984) Turkey
Reiterates UNSC resolution 541 and insists that member states may "not to facilitate or in any way assist" the secessionist entity.

573 (1985) Israel
Calls on Israel to pay compensation for human and material losses from its attack against Tunisia and to refrain from all such attacks or threats of attacks against other nations.

592 (1986) Israel
Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.

605 (1987) Israel
"Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violations of the provisions of the Convention."

607 (1986) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

608 (1988) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

636 (1989) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

641 (1989) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions calling on Israel to desist in its deportations.

658 (1990) Morocco
Calls upon Morocco to "cooperate fully" with the Secretary General of the United Nations and the chairman of the Organization of African Unity "in their efforts aimed at an early settlement of the question of Western Sahara."

672 (1990) Israel
Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

673 (1990) Israel
Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672.

681 (1990) Israel
Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

690 (1991) Morocco
Calls upon both parties to cooperate fully with the Secretary General in implementing a referendum on the fate of the territory.

694 (1991) Morocco
Reiterates that Israel "must refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported."

716 (1991) Morocco
Reaffirms previous resolutions on Cyprus.

725 (1991) Morocco
"Calls upon the two parties to cooperate fully in the settlement plan."

726 (1992) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

799 (1992) Israel
"Reaffirms applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention…to all Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention."

807 (1993) Croatia
Demands return of heavy weapons seized from UN storage areas.

809 (1992) Morocco
Reiterates call to cooperate with the peace settlement plan, particularly regarding voter eligibility for referendum.

815 (1993) Croatia
Reaffirms UNSC resolution 807.

822 (1993) Armenia
Calls for Armenia to implement the "immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan."

853 (1993) Armenia
Demands "complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces" from Azerbaijani territory.

874 (1993) Armenia
Reiterates calls for withdrawal of occupation forces.

884 (1993) Armenia
Calls on Armenia to use its influence to force compliance by Armenian militias to previous resolutions and to withdraw its remaining occupation forces.

896 (1994) Russia
"Calls upon all concerned to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia."

904 (1994) Israel
Calls upon Israel, as the occupying power, "to take and implement measures, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by settlers."

973 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates the need for cooperation with United Nations and expediting referendum on the fate of Western Sahara.

995 (1995) Morocco
Calls for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts to move forward with a referendum.

1002 (1995) Morocco
Reiteration of call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts.

1009 (1995) Croatia
Demands that Croatia "respect fully the rights of the local Serb population to remain, leave, or return in safety."

1017 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates the call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts and to cease "procrastinating actions which could further delay the referendum."

1033 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts.

1044 (1996) Sudan
Calls upon Sudan to extradite to Ethiopia for prosecution three suspects in an assassination attempt of visiting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and to cease its support for sanctuary and offering of sanctuary to terrorists.

1054 (1996) Sudan
Demands that Sudan come into compliance with UNSC resolution 1044.

1056 (1996) Morocco
Calls for the release of political prisoners from occupied Western Sahara.

1070 (1996) Sudan
Reiterates demands to comply with 1044 and 1054.

1073 (1996) Israel
"Calls on the safety and security of Palestinian civilians to be ensured."

1079 (1996) Croatia
Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia.

1092 (1996) Turkey/Cyprus
Calls for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step toward a total withdrawal troops as well as a reduction in military spending.

1117 (1997) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step toward a total withdrawal troops and reduction in military spending.

1120 (1997) Croatia
Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia and calls on Croatia to change certain policies that obstruct this right, and to treat its citizens equally regardless of ethnic origin.

1145 (1997) Croatia
Reiterates Croatian responsibility in supporting the political and economic rights of its people regardless of ethnic origin.

1172 (1998) India, Pakistan
Calls upon India and Pakistan to cease their development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

1178 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1185 (1998) Morocco
Calls for the lifting of restrictions of movement by aircraft of UN peacekeeping force.

1215 (1998) Morocco
Urges Morocco to promptly sign a "status of forces agreement."

1217 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1251 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1264 (1999) Indonesia
Calls on Indonesia to provide safe return for refugees and punish those for acts of violence during and after the referendum campaign.

1272 (1999) Indonesia
Stresses the need for Indonesia to provide for the safe return for refugees and maintain the civilian and humanitarian character of refugee camps.

1283 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251.

1303 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolutions 1283 and 1251.

1319 (2000) Indonesia
Insists that Indonesia "take immediate additional steps, in fulfillment of its responsibilities, to disarm and disband the militia immediately, restore law and order in the affected areas of West Timor, ensure safety and security in the refugee camps and for humanitarian workers, and prevent incursions into East Timor." Stresses that those guilty of attacks on international personnel be brought to justice and reiterates the need to provide safe return for refugees who wish to repatriate and provide resettlement for those wishing to stay in Indonesia.

1322 (2000) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying power.

1331 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and subsequent resolutions.

1338 (2001) Indonesia
Calls for Indonesian cooperation with the UN and other international agencies in the fulfillment of UNSC resolution 1319.

1359 (2001) Morocco
Calls on the parties to "abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law to release without further delay all those held since the start of the conflict."

1384 (2001) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus.

1402 (2002) Israel
Calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities.

1403 (2002) Israel
Demands that Israel go through with "the implementation of its resolution 1402, without delay."

1405 (2002) Israel
Calls for UN inspectors to investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp.

1416 (2002) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus.

1435 (2002) Israel
Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure.

How are these memos playing across the Atlantic? As an American I've gotten used to Bush lies and our congress' inaction in regards to those lies, but my question is; how are the UK people and parliament reacting to the fact that there prime minister actually conspired with the US President to create a war. Is there a UK equivalent of impeachment or at least censure?

Along with destroying our integrity, Bush has also destroyed his legacy, I wonder if he hasn't done the same for Tony Blair and the United Kingdom.

Me and Delay enlisted to go to Vietnam, but they wouldn't send us because of all the blacks in affirmative action who got priority.

And yeah, I'm 58 years old and I talk like a brain-damaged 12 year old. So what, wanna fight about it?
And yeah, Eisenhower died in 1945, seven years before he became president, making him the first zombie to serve two terms. Cleveland only served one as a zombie.

Jay on March 27, 2006 at 10:56 AM

LMAO! ROTF...

Eisenhower died in April 1945. Truman was the first to establish troop presence in Vietnam later that year. And Kennedy bolstered that presence and initiated hostilities.

From Wikipedia:

Soon after the Korean War, with the intention of preventing South Vietnam from becoming a communist state, United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent the first of hundreds of American armed servicemen (along with CIA agents) to Vietnam as military advisers on Feb. 12, 1955.

At a news conference in 1954, Eisenhower stated, "You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is a certainty that it will go over very quickly. Asia has alreay lost some 450 millions of its peoples to communist dictatorship. We simply cannot afford greater losses" Eisenhower and his staff subsequently started a plan for military support of South Vietnam.

On July 8, 1959 Dale Buis and Charles Ovnand became the first Americans killed in action in Vietnam.

NOW JEEBUS, you KNOW that can't be true...just last week our prez said right out loud that "no president wants to go to war!"...what are you going to believe...this fine, upstanding CHRISTIAN man or some old liberal, elitist report that MUST be contrived? All recent evidence supports the honor and integrity and ethics of this administration, non?

I am 58 years old and was enlisted in the draft for Vietnam but was never selected, so at the very least I offered my services

Jay,

I am SO gald I am old enough to call you on your bullshit.

You make it sound so noble. You enlisted in the draft. Too bad there was no voluntary enlisting in the draft at the time - everyone was enlisted.

Or wait, do you mean you suppressed your gayness so you wouldn't get the 4F deferrment? I suppose that would be noble, but only if you did it to get a chance to kill some gooks.

If you lied about your homosexuality just so you could spend close quarters with young, healthy, masculine studs then you are a naughty, naughty boy.

So why weren't you selected? In 1966 or so they were taking every warm blooded piece of meat they could find.

What gave you the 4F? Was it an ingrown butthair like Rush Limbaugh had?

How does it feel to be a loser every single fucking [day?] of your pathetic life?

Ask W.

Unlike those who are ceaselessly praying for the victory of our enemies, I would rather believe our Commander-in-Chief during the time of war than New York Times' descriptio of illegally obtained documents.

Is anyone really surprised by this? The notion that the ends justify the means is the absolute bedrock of conservative ideology. And, as we all know, since 9/11 "changed everything", morality is now strictly for losers (like us liberals).

I see that poor, dim-witted Kevin is still touting the "Bush Lied" meme.

What's especially delicious about this is the current and pending release of those 48,000 boxes of captured Iraqi documents. Moonbats like Kevin have bet all of their credibility (such as it is/was) on their absurd contention that the Iraq war was unnecessary and that GWB lied to us all (for some unexplained reasons having to do with oil or whatever).

Not only have the newly release documents demonstrated extensive ties between Bin Laden and Saddam, Laurie Mylorie discovered this:

Two documents relate to Iraq's proscribed WMD programs. One is a table, providing details of a Sept. 6, 2000, contract for the production of "the malignant pustule" -- the Pentagon official who leaked these documents believed it referred to anthrax -- along with earlier contracts for sterilization and decontamination equipment. Another table describes an Aug. 21, 2000, contract for the production of mustard gas and earlier contracts for protective equipment. Small amounts of material are mentioned: three ampules of "the malignant pustule" (an ampule is a small, sealed glass vial) and five kilograms of mustard gas. These contracts could have represented test runs, or, as a former U.N. weapons inspector suggested to me, the material could have been intended for terrorism. - Today's WSJ, for Subscribers only.

Just what do you idiots think will be the reaction of the American electorate to the inevitable conclusions that Saddam was the source of the Anthrax released on our shores in September of 2001?

But Saddam was SECULAR!! (you wail)

What a bunch of idiots you are.

The cease fire agreement clearly stated that the allies reserved the right to continue hostilities towards the Iraqi regime if any of the resolutions were violated.

No, the cease-fire agreement Resolution 687 clearly stated that the UN Security Council -- and not any individual member country of the UN -- reserved the right. If Bush had wanted to use the UN as a pretext he should have gone to the SC and obtained a resolution -- but, even though he'd said he was going to do this he flip-flopped and didn't.

I stopped giving the benefit of the doubt to the warmongers on the day I heard the President blatantly lie sometime before the start of the Iraq war to say that Saddam did not allow inspectors to come into Iraq.

All of these kind of things that have been coming out since then have only served to confirm my conviction that these guys were lying. It is really despicable that they have been trying so desperately to cover up their deliberate falsehoods as so many americans and non-americans continue to die for their lies.

...he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons.

Operation Just Because.

"Well, gee. According the translations of Iraqi internal documents.

1) There weren't any
2) They knew they could rebuild them all quickly anyway and were planning to"

Cite please.

It's really, really getting hard to tell whether Jay is real or a parody.

Vietnam was a war inspired by the democrats.

The US' first commitments to South Vietnam were made under Eisenhower -- if he was a Democrat, that's certainly news to me and to the history books -- and the war continued from Nixon's election in 1968 (hence, no doubt, Jay's tepid "inspired by" qualifier) into the administration of Gerald Ford, no Democrat he.

The country lost over 150,000 brave men and women

I'd like to see your source for that figure, as it appears to be above most accepted counts by a factor of nearly three.

Just what do you idiots think will be the reaction of the American electorate to the inevitable conclusions that Saddam was the source of the Anthrax released on our shores in September of 2001?

You forgot to mention hurricane Katrina and the asian Tsunami. Only an America-hating terrorist would deny Saddam's role in those disasters.

(for some unexplained reasons having to do with oil or whatever).

Ok, so you can't read, either. The idea that Bush wanted to be a "wartime president" to boost his domestic support in the interests of pushing a pro-business legislative agenda at home is hardly some big secret. You may not agree with this, but to never have heard this notion before, you really must have been living under a rock for the past three years. Or, you know, the "being totally full of shit" explanation. Either one.

...he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons.

One doesn't have to be Rev. Bayes to conclude on the basis of the available evidence that there is a very high probability that he was determined to invade Iraq even before the first resolution.

The President has lied profusely about his motivation for the Iraq war ever since the misadventure began.

Yes, Norman, I too think Sadaam was behind the Anthrax attacks. I just remember all of those fiery speeches of his, demonizing CBS, the New York Post, Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy.

shortstop, a modified haiku in using, um, poetic license...LOL!

Flippity doo dah!
Shooting him birds. My, oh, my!
A prez who serves turds.

Plenty of sunshine
Exposes the BushLiar.
Flippity doo dah!
His pants are on fire.

...production of "the malignant pustule"

I thought that was you, Norman.

Just what do you idiots think will be the reaction of the American electorate to the inevitable conclusions that Saddam was the source of the Anthrax released on our shores in September of 2001?

The usual -- that Regnery will publish any old wingnut propaganda.

Nuts'n Run Jay on March 27, 2006 at 10:02 AM:

...and was enlisted in the draft for Vietnam but was never selected, so at the very least I offered my services.

You could have volunteered, chickenhawk...and being in a draft lottery doesn't qualify as 'offering service', chickenhawk...

That's it! New nickname: 'Cluck'n Run Jay'...

Stefan on March 27, 2006 at 10:45 AM:

Even though this second resolution required Iraq to disarm it did not give a blank check to the U.S...

Hey, thanks, Stefan...Condoleeza Rice parroted the '17 resolutions' talking point on Meet the Press...I thought that it was about the only thing she wasn't lying about...Typical Republican weasel-talk; 'Tho resolutions may have been violated, the US was not the sole responsible party for enforcing the resolutions.

That Bush and Blair lied about WMD is a given. That they intended to invade Iraq no matter what is a given. Arguing this is a waste of air and bandwidth. The real question is: why? There is remarkably little energy given to this. Anyone but a drooling idiot knows, at this point, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. B&B knew this, too. Given all that they knew - why did they decide to invade Iraq? What were the main reasons? All other questions regarding Iraq are missing the point.
Posted by: ExBrit

I don't claim to know the real reason(s), but if one looks at the profits being made by the Bush/Cheney Oil Cartel since Iraq's oil was made inaccessible as a result of the invasion, I suspect you'd find the increase has been astronomical.

Follow the $$$

G. Kerby

I don't think it's the $$$.

It's GWB's perception that he outline even prior to 2000 that being a Commander-in-Chief during the time of a war produces a lot of political capital, enough to get re-elected.

In case anyone needs a history refresher on the Vietnam era draft:

1964 - While the draft had already been in place, the need for US soldiers greatly increased in 1964, so this is the first year when a substantial number of young men were drafted.

Unfortunately, as we know from Bush's TANG assignment, there was great corruption in local draft boards, who could hand out deferments at their own discretion. Probably the most common deferment was 2S - college student. The second most common was 3A - married with child. This is how Cheney avoided the draft.

Because of widespread protests at the unfairness of the draft/deferment system Congress created the 'birthday lottery' system in 1969. At that time young men would receive a lottery number based on their birth date to determine their draft order.

So our 58 year old Jay was draft eligible smack in the middle of the corruption/deferment time period.

I ask again, Jay, what deferment did you get?

For the record by the time I became eligible, 1974, the draft had officially ended but they continued to hold the birthday lotteries. I received a high lottery number but it didn't matter because no one with my birth year was drafted.

Sorry. I mean to say...

It's GWB's perception that he outlined...