Originally posted by groverat
His full cooperation wouldn't be necessary to get a solid evaluation of the WMD situation in Iraq.
Read the UNMOVIC reports.
What does "last chance" mean? Who said it was "last chance"?
When did I say the purpose was a "scavenger hunt for weapons"? Not once. It is straw man after straw man with you.
I remember the build-up to war. I was the pro-war person on this board that actually took time to read the resolutions and UNMOVIC reports, remember? Think carefully.
Show me where in 1441 war is authorized. It's not there.
1441 calls for the Security Council to meet again when UNMOVIC and IAEA reports on Iraq are delivered. You might want to read it before trolling condescendingly.
We agreed with 1441 and we should have lived up to our end of the bargain. We didn't.
There were piles of reports and evidence and testimony and you only have a third-party account of one phrase from Tenet. That's all you have.
The US has had endless opportunities to show any kind of evidence. It's coming up on 3 years later, and nothing. Nothing.
And loyalists like you still try to keep it alive with threads like this. There is a mountain range of evidence against you and you cling to one second-hand quote.
Here's what I make of Tenet's comment: That was Bush offering Tenet up as a scapegoat.
"Saddam's full cooperation wasn't necessary"
What? How can you make that statement? Saddam toyed with inspectors for years. He denied them access, delayed them, and did everything he could to appear to be complying while not actually complying. His cooperation was needed and mandated
Last chance: Um, resolution 1441 itself did say that: Here:
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council;
Scavenger Hunt: You're right, you didn't use that term. But can you argue effectively that this is not how you feel about the situation? It certainly seems you do. Your arguments were, in part, based on the fact that inspectors had not found anything and that there was not anything to find. Correct?
1441 Authorizing War: It doesn't explicity state it, and I would also disagree that the UN has the moral authority to authorize war anyway. It's more like "sanctioning". In any case, the implication of this statement is clear:
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
Let that entire statement sink in for a second. In all seriousness, I think you're one of the few people here I disagree with that can comprehend it. Look at it: "In that context
...the council has repeatedly warned
...will face serious consequences
of it's continued violations of its obligations
. That statement carries unbelievable meaning and weight. The council is saying that Iraq has been hit with every punishment other than full out war. Sanctions, resolutions and even limited military strikes. Yet, it threatens serious consequences this time. I ask you...what else could that possibly mean?
As for us not living up to our end of the bargain, that doesn't make sense. IRAQ had to live up to international demands. It was no bargain, and it certainly wasn't our obligation to live up to it.
As for your analysis of me being a loyalist, that's really laughable. What you fail to understand is that from my viewpoint, "finding weapons" was never the standard for war. Saddam's cooperation was, in addition to the other reasons that I have listed. There is no question he didn't
cooperate. Game over.
That being said, I still think that there is a good possibility that Saddam had WMD prior to the invasion. It's not about justifying anything. I'm not sure what motive I would have in that. The election is over, after all.