Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled

[lily]

Some good news coming out of Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/14/AR2007101401245.html?wpisrc=newsletter)

Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled
Many Officials, However, Warn Of Its Resilience

By Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, October 15, 2007; Page A01

The U.S. military believes it has dealt devastating and perhaps irreversible
blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, leading some generals to
advocate a declaration of victory over the group, which the Bush
administration has long described as the most lethal U.S. adversary in Iraq.

But as the White House and its military commanders plan the next phase of
the war, other officials have cautioned against taking what they see as a
premature step that could create strategic and political difficulties for
the United States. Such a declaration could fuel criticism that the Iraq
conflict has become a civil war in which U.S. combat forces should not be
involved. At the same time, the intelligence community, and some in the
military itself, worry about underestimating an enemy that has shown great
resilience in the past.



"I think it would be premature at this point," a senior intelligence
official said of a victory declaration over AQI, as the group is known.
Despite recent U.S. gains, he said, AQI retains "the ability for surprise
and for catastrophic attacks." Earlier periods of optimism, such as
immediately following the June 2006 death of AQI founder Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi in a U.S. air raid, not only proved unfounded but were followed
by expanded operations by the militant organization.

There is widespread agreement that AQI has suffered major blows over the
past three months. Among the indicators cited is a sharp drop in suicide
bombings, the group's signature attack, from more than 60 in January to
around 30 a month since July. Captures and interrogations of AQI leaders
over the summer had what a senior military intelligence official called a
"cascade effect," leading to other killings and captures. The flow of
foreign fighters through Syria into Iraq has also diminished, although
officials are unsure of the reason and are concerned that the broader
al-Qaeda network may be diverting new recruits to Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The deployment of more U.S. and Iraqi forces into AQI strongholds in Anbar
province and the Baghdad area, as well as the recruitment of Sunni tribal
fighters to combat AQI operatives in those locations, has helped to deprive
the militants of a secure base of operations, U.S. military officials said.
"They are less and less coordinated, more and more fragmented," Lt. Gen.
Raymond T. Odierno, the second-ranking U.S. commander in Iraq, said
recently. Describing frayed support structures and supply lines, Odierno
estimated that the group's capabilities have been "degraded" by 60 to 70
percent since the beginning of the year.

Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, head of the Joint Special Operations Command's
operations in Iraq, is the chief promoter of a victory declaration and
believes that AQI has been all but eliminated, the military intelligence
official said. But Adm. William J. Fallon, the chief of U.S. Central
Command, which oversees Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, is urging
restraint, the official said. The military intelligence official, like
others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity
about Iraq assessments and strategy.

Senior U.S. commanders on the ground, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, the
head of U.S. forces in Iraq, have long complained that Central Command,
along with the CIA, is too negative in its analyses. On this issue, however,
Petraeus agrees with Fallon, the military intelligence official said.

For each assessment of progress against AQI, there is a cautionary note that
comes from long and often painful experience. Despite the increased killings
and captures of AQI members, Odierno said, "it only takes three people" to
construct and detonate a suicide car bomb that can "kill thousands." The
goal, he said, is to make each attack less effective and lengthen the
periods between them.

Right now, said another U.S. official, who declined even to be identified by
the agency he works for, the data are "insufficient and difficult to
measure."

"AQI is definitely taking some hits," the official said. "There is definite
progress, and that is undeniable good news. But what we don't know is how
long it will last . . . and whether it's sustainable. . . . They have
withstood withering pressure for a long period of time." Three months, he
said, is not long enough to consider a trend sustainable.

Views of the extent to which AQI has been vanquished also reflect
differences over the extent to which it operates independently from Osama
bin Laden's central al-Qaeda organization, based in Pakistan. "Everyone has
an opinion about how franchisement of al-Qaeda works," a senior White House
official said. "Is it through central control, or is it decentralized?" The
answer to that question, the official said, affects "your ability to
determine how successfully [AQI] has been defeated or neutralized. Is it
'game over'?"

In Baghdad, the White House official said, the group's "area of operations
has been reduced quite a bit for a variety of reasons, some good and some
bad." Three years of sectarian fighting have eliminated many mixed
Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods. Those areas had been the most fertile and
accessible places for AQI, which is composed of extremist Sunnis, to attack
Shiite civilians, security forces and government officials. But the death of
mixed neighborhoods also has made another Bush administration priority --
promoting political reconciliation -- more difficult.

The expanded presence of U.S. troops in combat outposts in many parts of
Baghdad has also put pressure on AQI, but a major test of gains against the
organization will come when the U.S. military begins to turn security in
those areas over to Iraqi forces next year.

Recent suicide bombings in northern Iraq have convinced some officials that
AQI has moved its operations in that direction. But the officials said they
do not know whether AQI militants have permanently decamped from Baghdad and
Anbar province, or whether they are merely lying low in anticipation of a
U.S. departure or the failure of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to
end the sectarian divisions that AQI fostered and now feeds upon.

While a victory declaration might have the "psychological aspect" of
discouraging recruitment to a perceived lost cause, the White House official
said, advantages overall would be minimal. "I recognize that there are pros
to saying, 'Hey, listen, the bad guys are on the run.' " But if AQI were
later able to demonstrate residual capabilities with a series of bombings,
"even though it was temporary," he said, "the question becomes: How does
this play out in terms of public opinion?"

[jafar00]

I'd be careful about declaring victory again. Remember what happened since Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech?

However, if AQ is defeated, you may insert a youtube video of myself and 8 friends dancing in the street and burning a flag for the camera in celebration. It would be wonderful news indeed, but I can't bring myself to look at this report as anything more than a propaganda stunt.

Americans are still dying and getting horrifically wounded in Iraq.

[lawless168]

yes, and all TV news that i have seen so far have reported this and have also said the US isn't and won't declare victory, and have said the US is still far from it, but its a huge step in the right direction.

[Marley]

The mission was accomplished.

Saddam Hussien's government was defeated.

I guess you're going to argue our military lost to Saddam Hussien's? LOL

How many friggin times do our troops have to defeat the army they've been sent to defeat before you let them be rewarded with praise from the Commander in chief?

[lily]

I'd be careful about declaring victory again. Remember what happened since Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech?

However, if AQ is defeated, you may insert a youtube video of myself and 8 friends dancing in the street and burning a flag for the camera in celebration. It would be wonderful news indeed, but I can't bring myself to look at this report as anything more than a propaganda stunt.

Americans are still dying and getting horrifically wounded in Iraq.


Jafar.........I don't think anyone is saying Mission Accomplished, but this is some good news coming out of Iraq. I'll take it when I can get it.

[Elrathin]

The mission was accomplished.

Saddam Hussien's government was defeated.

I guess you're going to argue our military lost to Saddam Hussien's? LOL

Great they accomplished the mission, they can come home now right? What's stopping them? You said they accomplished the mission, now whats stopping them from coming home then?

Oh that's right, the administration UNDERESTIMATED what would happen WHEN Saddam's forces were defeated.

[lily]

Oh for Christ's sakes.........I didn't know McChrystal was the one that said the Mission was accomplished the first time around.

What a let down!

[Tsky]

The mission was to:

Give freedom to the Iraqi people ……Check! (If you call ‘freedom’ dodging bullets and losing half of your family tree in a car bomb attack by your enemies.)

Rid the U.S. of terroists…….Check! (Unless of course you consider George Bush to be a terroist….in which case I take back the 'Check!')

Make America more ‘free’…….Check! (If you consider freedom having your picture snapped while you drive in your car, having your conversations listened to on your cell phone without your knowledge, being given a prostate exam before you board an airplane, living with the knowledge that if suspected of being a terroist you can be retained and tortured indefinitely with no legal representation.)

Kill Saddam Hussein……Check! (Unless you are upset by the fact that the U.S. killed their former friend for killing folks in the 80’s but in the 80’s they turned the other cheek while he committed such killings, made no threats against the U.S. and had no weapons of mass of destruction.)

If America didn't accomplish their mission then I'm not sitting here typing these words on my computer.

[Marley]

You said they accomplished the mission

No, they DID accomplish the mission, regardless of whether or not I "say" anything.

Hillary, John Kerry and John Edwards all authorized the mission, not because I say so, because they DID.

Want to change the subject any more? (and pretend no will notice?)

[Tsky]

You said they accomplished the mission

No, they DID accomplish the mission, regardless of whether or not I "say" anything.

Hillary, John Kerry and John Edwards all authorized the mission, not because I say so, because they DID.

Want to change the subject any more? (and pretend no will notice?)


Seeing as how my email was dripping with sarcasm can you tell me what the mission was?

[Marley]

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

[Labrocca]

Mission and War are two seperate entities. Even the mission to defeat Al-Qaeda can only be seen as a major mission of the War.

Mission accomplished is 100% accurate and it's annoying the left uses it against the administration because it's a lie. A bald faced lie they continue to spew.

It may be premature to declare a victory over Al-Qaeda but the momentum we have going now is very good. We can turn a militant force back into a small rebel group and that's progress.

[Tsky]

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Those were the reasons sighted for the war. My question is...what is the mission? Is it the same mission that we accomplished 4 years ago or is it a different mission?

It's interesting that #1 was used as a reason to go to war. Has anyone been able to document the direct threat that Iraq presented to the United State of America? We already know they didn't have WMD's (which couldn't have reached America anyway) and we know that Al-Quaeda was not in Iraq before the U.S. entired Iraq so what was the direct threat? Please, do tell.

[Elrathin]

We can turn a militant force back into a small rebel group and that's progress.


Sorry but going to have to disagree with you here. The death toll each day is proof that Al-Q is not a small rebel group.

[Tsky]

We can turn a militant force back into a small rebel group and that's progress.


Sorry but going to have to disagree with you here. The death toll each day is proof that Al-Q is not a small rebel group.


True.

And can someone, I mean anyone, tell me why we are even fighting Al-Q in Iraq? Wasn't the "mission" to kill them supposed to be "accomplished" when we went to Afghanistan? Does the fact that they still exist in numbers so large that they have caused many casualties among the Iraqi people and our troops prove that we failed in Afghanistan? Can this President fail at anything? I'll bet 30 silver pieces that if Bill Clinton had involved the U.S. in this ridiculous war with severe loss of life and limb, a gazilion dollars in military spending, lack of support among the international community and a the rogue militant that we were supposed to be going after (Osama Bin Laden) still alive and making rap videos he would be the laughing stock of the country and would be constantly derided by Republicans.

[Marley]

Those were the reasons sighted for the war.

No, you're confused, this is the task -- the mission.

The "reasons" are called "recitals" in legalese geek speak, and you can spot those becuase they start with
"where as" as follows:

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;

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;

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;

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;

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';

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;

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;

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

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;

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;

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

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;

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;

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);

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';

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';

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;

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';

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;

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;

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;

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

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,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

Hope that helps!

The death toll each day is proof that Al-Q is not a small rebel group.

What was the "Death toll" yesterday?

What was it the month prior to yesterday?

What was it 6 months prior to yesterday?

What was it the same day last year?

I hope you have the character and honesty to repsond to a rational analysis of the measurement YOU raise to assess the sistuation.

[Elrathin]

What was the "Death toll" yesterday?

What was it the month prior to yesterday?

What was it 6 months prior to yesterday?

What was it the same day last year?

I hope you have the character and honesty to repsond to a rational analysis of the measurement YOU raise to assess the sistuation.


I'll give you yesterday:

Monday 15 October: 32 dead

Baghdad: suicide car bomber kills 4, Harthiya; 5 bodies.
Diwaniya: multi-national headquarters come under mortar attack, clashes between militia and multi-national forces ensue, followed by US shelling -5 civilians killed, 2 of them children under the age of 3.
Balad: suicide car bomber targets police checkpoint, kills 6 policemen.
Ramadi: 3 bodies.
Mosul: 2 bodies.
Basra: kidnapped professor's body found.

The rest you can find out yourself.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

[Tsky]

Those were the reasons sighted for the war.

No, you're confused, this is the task -- the mission.

The "reasons" are called "recitals" in legalese geek speak, and you can spot those becuase they start with
"where as" as follows:

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;

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;

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;

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;

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';

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;

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;

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

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;

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;

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

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;

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;

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);

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';

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';

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;

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';

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;

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;

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;

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

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,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

Hope that helps!

The death toll each day is proof that Al-Q is not a small rebel group.

What was the "Death toll" yesterday?

What was it the month prior to yesterday?

What was it 6 months prior to yesterday?

What was it the same day last year?

I hope you have the character and honesty to repsond to a rational analysis of the measurement YOU raise to assess the sistuation.


Whereas, the U.S. used 'disinformation' per your own Commander and Chief as a part of their justification for war.

Your President admitted there were no weapons of mass destruction and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so the information about those two things should not have been in their resolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soohikNdbWs


Care to discuss? Hum?

[Marley]

You give nothing, it's meaningless.

Put it in context, in perspective, show us the trend, you know, intelligent, rational analysis!

And one would assume WHO was killed by whom would mean something too.

I'm sure hundreds of thousands of people died yesterday all over the planet, but that "death toll" means about as much as what you provide!

[Elrathin]

You give nothing, it's meaningless.

Put it in context, in perspective, show us the trend, you know, intelligent, rational analysis!

And one would assume WHO was killed by whom would mean something too.

I'm sure hundreds of thousands of people died yesterday all over the planet, but that "death toll" means about as much as what you provide!


It's all right there. You refuse to look at it so that is your problem, not mine. The trend is there, look at the different days and the death toll that Al-Q is causing.

The proof is that they are not a small band of rebels. They are definately contenders in Iraq. You can't refute the facts to that.

[Marley]

Tsky, I quoted the US congress, stay awake, pay attention.

Hillary Clinton is runnign for office right now on all here "experience" you know, running the SAME CIA and all before Bush.

She would have a clue what HER CIA knew when she was reported to by "Bush's" CIA, right?

LOL

The arguments liberals swallow are so stupid.


"Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11"

Am I supposed to be stuppid enough to believe the reason I provided from the US congress inclused anything about "IRaq [having] to do with 9/11?" LMAO

No, I'm awake and pay attention, sorry!

[Tsky]

Tsky, I quoted the US congress, stay awake, pay attention.

Hillary Clinton is runnign for office right now on all here "experience" you know, running the SAME CIA and all before Bush.

She would have a clue what HER CIA knew when she was reported to by "Bush's" CIA, right?

LOL

The arguments liberals swallow are so stupid.


"Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11"

Am I supposed to be stuppid enough to believe the reason I provided from the US congress inclused anything about "IRaq [having] to do with 9/11?" LMAO

No, I'm awake and pay attention, sorry!


Is it more stupid for you to label me as a 'liberal' or for you to ignore my point blank questions and bring up Hilary Clinton? I'm going to go with all of the above.

Now, back to the original subject.

You said:
"The "reasons" are called "recitals" in legalese geek speak, and you can spot those becuase they start with "where as" as follows:"

The U.S. Congress resolution that you quoted my simple-minded friend was given information by your President who proposed war...or did the Congress just wake up one morning and decide they wanted to invade Iraq? Anywho, your President sighted as a reason for war the then stated 'fact' that Iraq possed WMD's and he sighted 9/11 as a reason for preemptively invading a sovereign nation. He then stated in the Youtube video that you are obviously afraid to watch that: a. The main reason we went to war with Iraq is because we thought they had WMD's which he admitted they didn't have and b. Iraq was not directly connected to 9/11.

So I would like to discuss the 'reasons' for war. If the reasons for war were wrong why can't you understand ambivalence to the war by the American public?
Please discuss.

[Marley]

"Is it more stupid for you to label me as a 'liberal'..."

Gee, where'd I do that?

"was given information by your President who proposed war.."

FALSE! The congress is briefed on intelligence matters independent of the White House. Sorry, the facts don't support what you claim.

"that Iraq possed WMD's"

Iraq DID possess WMD bright guy. IRAQ made the claim to the world in 1991, you need to stay awake. THEN, Iraq queered the integrity of any means to confirm their destruction in 1998 genius by ejecting the weapons INSPECTORS. (even a pea brain would notice the title "Inspector" in lieu of "Seeker" or "Finder," INSPECTOR bright guy)

So, follow me here.

Iraq had WMD
Iraq promised to destroy them.
Iraq prevented confirmation of their destruction.


Can you grasp that genius?


"Iraq was not directly connected to 9/11."

SO WHAT?

No one ever claimed they were.

Nice smoke an mirrors pal, I guess it worls on geniuses like you.

Me, I like to take the Path Train to the Village every now and then for jollies, and YOUR looking for me just doesn't cut it, thanks but no thanks, you're just not up to snuff on national security concepts and principles to manage my nationsa security for me, okay?

[Tsky]

"was given information by your President who proposed war.."

"FALSE! The congress is briefed on intelligence matters independent of the White House. Sorry, the facts don't support what you claim." emale

Was it Bush's idea to declare war on Iraq or did the Congress wake up one morning, review intelligence reports and decide that Saddam should be ousted? You tell me.

Whose intelligence did Bush use during this speech before before the U.N council 9/12/02?

"Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming." President Bush

Are you calling your President a liar? He said in the Youtube video that Iraq DID NOT have WMD's after stating in this spirited speech that they did. Did he or did he not say they didn't have WMD's? And by the way, failure to "prove" that you don't have a nuclear bomb (outside of NOT using said bomb to attack your enemies who have boldly told you they are coming to your country to confiscate said bomb) does not give one country a legitimate reason to invade another. Regardless of whose intelligence said what the intelligence was WRONG and it was your President who proposed war based on false information. I know that doesn't mean much to a close-minded simpleton like you but where I'm from that means incompetent.

Bush's case for war to the American public.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Notice the diplomatic efforts towards countries like Iran and North Korea (who actually have WMD's) but no further diplomacy is extended towards Iraq. How long has the U.S. known that North Korea was developing nuclear arms? Why such patience with them and not Iraq?

Notice how the President ties Saddam Hussein to Al-Quaeda in his speech? He then said Iraq had no connection to 9/11 and wondered how people ever came to the conclusion that he would suggest such a thing. Amazing.

Another question: If we went to Afghanistan to get rid of Al-Qaeda, left Afghanistan and called it a 'success' but then have to fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq because they weren't killed in Afghanistan, was the 'mission' in Afghanistan 'accomplished'?

And now I'm a 'liberal' and a 'guy'. Wow, I see why you have a negative 10 rating. :lmao:

[Marley]

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance.

True or false?

[/quote]It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon.[/quote]

True or false?

[/quote]Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes... [/quote]

True or false?

[/quote]aluminum tubes [are] used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapons[/quote]

True or false?

[/quote]And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists[/quote]

True or false?


Frankly, I tire having to throw this obviosu shit back in your seditious dishonest face. Thank God GWB won election in 2000 and 2004 so I may live free and safe from random large-scale violence.

What sucks the worst is I could spend a couple hours exposing your sedition and dishonesty and you would ignore clear logic and confirmable evidence and spout the same lies the next day.

So really, let's call this "agree to disagree" instead of "eat shit and die" like I really want to, okay?[/quote]

[Scorpion]

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance.

True or false?

It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon.[/quote]

True or false?

[/quote]Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes... [/quote]

True or false?

[/quote]aluminum tubes [are] used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapons[/quote]

True or false?

[/quote]And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists[/quote]

True or false?


Frankly, I tire having to throw this obviosu shit back in your seditious dishonest face. Thank God GWB won election in 2000 and 2004 so I may live free and safe from random large-scale violence.

What sucks the worst is I could spend a couple hours exposing your sedition and dishonesty and you would ignore clear logic and confirmable evidence and spout the same lies the next day.

So really, let's call this "agree to disagree" instead of "eat shit and die" like I really want to, okay?[/quote]
[/quote]

emale:

I think that the concern here is the documentation regarding Saddam's nuclear program. Where is it and what does it say? And are there any nuclear materials hidden?

And might I suggest that you speak in a civil, if not courteous manner, instead of the unnecessary vulgarity? Thanks.

[Tsky]

The real issue is that President Bush said, and I quote:
“The MAIN REASON we went to Iraq is because we thought they had weapons of mass destruction and it turns out they did not.”

If that was the MAIN REASON no one really cares about all of the other reasons cited in his case for war. All of the other reasons were ‘incidental’ while the belief that Saddam actually had WMD’s was not a known fact.

So it turns out they didn’t have them, your Presidents main case for war was wrong and sadly it took 50 zillion dead civilians and soldiers to find out what most of us knew before the U.S. entered Iraq: Saddam Hussein did not have any weapons of mass destruction.

Do you still think they had WMD’s or were seeking to obtain them? Check out the final report courtesy of
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol2_nuclear-01.htm

Miscalculation (2002-2003)
In the year prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), MIC undertook improvements to technology in several areas that could have been applied to a renewed centrifuge program for uranium enrichment. These dual-use technologies included projects to acquire a magnet production line at Al Tahadi, carbon fiber filament winding equipment for missile fabrication at al Karama, and the creation of a new Department of Rotating Machinery at Ibn Yunis. All of these projects were created to improve specific military or commercial products, but the technologies could have help support a centrifuge development project. ISG, however, has uncovered no indication that Iraq had resumed fissile material or nuclear weapon research and development activities since 1991.
We won’t even discuss his claims that Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeda.

I hope the President doesn’t assume the Prime Minister of Aruba is developing WMD’s, provide misleading mixed with insignificant information to Congress and get the authority to declare war only to find out we were wrong and say, “oops, my bad….teehee….but America is a better place because of it.’

[Deadshot]

This POTUS operates under the same logic of a 16 year old child, that is that it's better to beg forgiveness then ask permission.

He KNEW he didn't have his ducks in a row, but gamble, and in the end he won. Bush Jr. will not pay the price, nor will Cheney or Rummy, etc. Instead our country pays.

Pays in blood, treasure, prestige and, just as importantly, it pays in losing a party for awhile. Because of Bush's arrogance and unwillingness to comprimise he's burned his own party. He's created a vaccum that the Democrats will fill, and since History repeats itself, in about 10 years, after the Dems have run things for awhile the Republicans will begin to surge forward again because Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely, and the Dems will fall.

So Bush will have fucked everybody, including his own, and all of us will suffer for it...:shame:

[Tsky]

I don't expect you to actually deal with facts but just in case, here is the answer to the question of whether or not Iraq had WMD's. If you stop watching Hannity & Combs for two seconds you will realize you've been living in a vaccum.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/librar...ear-01.htm

Miscalculation (2002-2003)
"In the year prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), MIC undertook improvements to technology in several areas that could have been applied to a renewed centrifuge program for uranium enrichment. These dual-use technologies included projects to acquire a magnet production line at Al Tahadi, carbon fiber filament winding equipment for missile fabrication at al Karama, and the creation of a new Department of Rotating Machinery at Ibn Yunis. All of these projects were created to improve specific military or commercial products, but the technologies could have help support a centrifuge development project. ISG, however, has uncovered no indication that Iraq had resumed fissile material or nuclear weapon research and development activities since 1991."

[Deadshot]

there you go, arguing facts, how dare you!

Good job, Tsky!:thumbsup: