[« Thought for the Day:] [It makes two of us.... »]
06/14/2005: Iraq decision chronology
is up at uggabugga. As stated, "subject to update". That was brought to my attention by Bryan at Why Now?, who adds:
The only thing that was missing was the act of Congress that authorized an attack, so I pulled one from the CNN archives: Senate approves Iraq war resolutionThe emphasis in that quote was provided by Bryan, who continues:Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.
Notice the part I emphasized. Nothing is mentioned except the WMDs. The act authorized an attack for that single reason. Saddam had no WMDs. Saddam had given them up. Saddam had complied with the UN Resolution. Bush had no authorization to go to war. The war was illegal.Of course, the Downing Street Memo and other evidence goes further. Basically (and uggabugga's timeline points this out), from the very first days of the Bush bAdministration, a war against Iraq was planned, and the bAdministration fudged and manipulated "intelligence" in order to maufacture a casus belli where none existed.
There was one, and only one reason for the war. That reason was stated in the Congressional resolution. That reason was reported at the time. None of the "other reasons" that have been trotted out by the Bushevikis since the start of the war have any relevance.
Can we say "crimes against humanity"? Can we say, "waging aggressive war"? Can we blatantly steal one of Billmon's greatest graphics? (No, we can't (or more accurately, we won't), but we can certainly link to it here. And be sure to read the accompanying post here.)
Len on 06.14.05 @ 06:47 AM CST
