«

On 13 Oct 2004 00:56:26 -0700, (Fred) wrote:

> the
>illegal invasion).

Gee, Freddy, no prejudice there.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:39:45 +1300, "jasmine"
<> wrote:

>Not true

Yeah, yeah, and you are smarter than all the others. ROFLMAO..

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:46:40 +1300, "jasmine"
<> wrote:

>There likely are now

Oh? Just sprouted overnight. Bwahahhahah

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:11:09 +1300, "jasmine"
<> wrote:

>'Despite the whitewash,

What whitewash? Only in Algore's delusion filled rotten squash. That
dude still claims he won. Pathetic...going around supporting losers.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:36:13 +1300, "jasmine"
<> wrote:

>I'm a "communist"...

I realize that Jazzy. And a backer of Kerry. And friend of our
terrorist enemies.

Jasmine, if you want the true facts, go to this site:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/
"jasmine" <> wrote in message
news:ckibim$ri1$...
>
> "Michael Rogers" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Dude, give it up. If he doesn't realize that he's spouting nonsense by
>> now, he never will.
>>
>> If he's as politally engaged as he seems he must know that five(5)
>> independant investigations said that Bush did not lie. Bush acted on
>> inteligence given him. He didn't fake it (he's not CBS), or invent it.
>
> Not true at all unless you belive that he was dumber than he seems:
> http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031013&s=corn and:
> Lie No. 1: "My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final
> days of decision."
>
> The decision for war with Iraq was made long ago, the intervening time
> having been spent in an attempt to create the political climate in which
> US
> troops could be deployed for an attack. According to press reports, most
> recently March 16 in the Baltimore Sun, at one of the first National
> Security Council meetings of his presidency, months before the terrorist
> attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Bush expressed his
> determination to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his willingness to commit US
> ground troops to an attack on Iraq for that purpose. All that was required
> was the appropriate pretext-supplied by September 11, 2001.
>
> Lie No. 2: "For more than a decade, the United States and other nations
> have
> pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without
> war."
>
> The US-led United Nations regime of sanctions against Iraq, combined with
> "no-fly" zones and provocative weapons inspections, is one of brutal
> oppression. The deliberate withholding of food, medical supplies and other
> vital necessities is responsible for the death of more than a million
> Iraqis, half of them children. Two UN officials who headed the
> oil-for-food
> program resigned in protest over the conditions created in Iraq by the
> sanctions. The CIA used the inspectors as a front, infiltrating agents
> into
> UNSCOM, the original inspections program. The CIA's aim was to spy on
> Iraq's
> top officials and target Saddam Hussein for assassination.
>
> Lie No. 3: "The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and
> advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding
> full disarmament..."
>
> Iraq has never "defied" a Security Council resolution since the end of the
> Persian Gulf War in 1991. It has generally cooperated with the dictates of
> the UN body, although frequently under protest or with reservations,
> because
> many of the resolutions involve gross violations of Iraqi sovereignty.
> From
> 1991 to 1998, UN inspectors supervised the destruction of the vast bulk of
> the chemical and biological weapons, as well as delivery systems, which
> Iraq
> accumulated (with the assistance of the US) during the Iran-Iraq war, and
> they also destroyed all of Iraq's facilities for making new weapons.
>
> Lie No. 4: "Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again
> and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men."
>
> According to the Washington Post of March 16, referring to the 1991-1998
> inspection period: "[U]nder UN supervision, Iraq destroyed 817 of 819
> proscribed medium-range missiles, 14 launchers, 9 trailers and 56 fixed
> missile-launch sites. It also destroyed 73 of 75 chemical or biological
> warheads and 163 warheads for conventional explosives. UN inspectors also
> supervised destruction of 88,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions,
> more than 600 tons of weaponized and bulk chemical weapons agents, 4,000
> tons of precursor chemicals and 980 pieces of equipment considered key to
> production of such weapons."
>
> Lie No. 5: "The Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the
> most lethal weapons ever devised."
>
> The Washington Post article cited above noted that CIA officials were
> concerned "about whether administration officials have exaggerated
> intelligence in a desire to convince the American public and foreign
> governments that Iraq is violating United Nations prohibitions against
> chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and long-range missile systems."
> The article quoted "a senior intelligence analyst" who said the inspectors
> could not locate weapons caches "because there may not be much of a
> stockpile."
>
> Former British Foreign Minister Robin Cook, who resigned from the Blair
> government Monday in protest over the decision to go to war without UN
> authorization, declared, "Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction
> in the commonly understood sense of the term." Even if Iraq is concealing
> some remnants of its 1980s arsenal, these would hardly deserve Bush's
> lurid
> description, since they are primitive and relatively ineffective. "Some of
> the most lethal weapons ever devised" are those being unleashed by the
> United States on Iraq: cruise missiles, smart bombs, fuel-air explosives,
> the 10,000-pound "daisy-cutter" bomb, the 20,000-pound MOAB just tested in
> Florida. In addition, the US has explicitly refused to rule out the use of
> nuclear weapons.
>
> Lie No. 6: "[Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including
> operatives of Al Qaeda."
>
> No one, not even US government, seriously believes there is a significant
> connection between the Islamic fundamentalists and the secular nationalist
> Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which have been mortal enemies for decades. The
> continued assertion of an Al Qaeda-Iraq alliance is a desperate attempt to
> link Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks.
>
> It also serves to cover up the responsibility of American imperialism for
> sponsoring Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. The forces that now comprise
> Al
> Qaeda were largely recruited, trained, armed and set in motion by the CIA
> itself, as part of a long-term policy of using Islamic fundamentalists as
> a
> weapon against left-wing movements in the Muslim countries. This policy
> was
> pursued from the 1950s and was escalated prior to and during the Soviet
> intervention in Afghanistan, which ended in 1989. Osama bin Laden himself
> was part of the CIA-backed mujaheddin forces in Afghanistan before he
> turned
> against Washington in the 1990s.
>
> Lie No. 7: "America tried to work with the United Nations to address this
> threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully."
>
> The Bush administration went to the United Nations because it wanted UN
> sanction for military action and it wanted UN member states to cough up
> funds for postwar operations, along the lines of its financial shakedown
> operation for the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Bush's most hawkish advisors,
> such
> as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney,
> initially
> opposed going to the UN because they did not want diplomacy to slow down
> the
> drive to war. They only agreed after Secretary of State Colin Powell
> argued
> that the pace of the US military buildup in the Persian Gulf gave enough
> time to get the UN to rubber-stamp the war.
>
> Lie No. 8: "These governments [the Security Council majority] share our
> assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it."
>
> This is belied by virtually every statement on Iraq issued by the
> governments of France, Russia, China, Germany and other countries opposed
> to
> military action, which have repeatedly declared that they see no imminent
> threat from Iraq. Bush brands his opponents on the Security Council as
> cowards, as though they were afraid to take action against Saddam Hussein.
> These countries were, in fact, increasingly alarmed-by the United States,
> not Iraq. Insofar as they summoned up resolve, to the shock of the Bush
> administration, it was to deny UN support for the war that Washington had
> already decided to wage.
>
> Lie No. 9: "Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to
> act
> against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to
> enforce the just demands of the world."
>
> Only three nations are contributing military forces to the war: 250,000
> from
> the US, 40,000 from Britain, and 2,000 from Australia. The other members
> of
> the "broad coalition" are those which have been bribed or browbeaten to
> allow the US to fly over their countries to bomb Iraq, to station troops,
> ships or warplanes on their territory, or provide technical assistance or
> other material aid to the war. None will do any fighting. All are acting
> against the expressed desire of their own population.
>
> Lie No. 10: "The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its
> responsibilities, so we will rise to ours."
>
> Bush defines the UN body's responsibility as serving as a rubber stamp for
> whatever action the United States government demands. In relation to the
> UN,
> however, the United States does have definite responsibilities, including
> refraining from waging war without Security Council authorization, except
> in
> the case of immediate self-defense. Under Article 42 of the UN Charter, it
> is for the Security Council, not the US or Britain, to decide how Security
> Council resolutions such as 1441 are to be enforced. The US decision to
> "enforce" its interpretation of 1441 regardless of the will of the
> Security
> Council is a violation of international law.
>
> Lie No. 11: "If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed
> against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you."
>
>
>
> The widely reported US military strategy is to conduct an aerial
> bombardment
> of Iraq so devastating that it will "shock and awe" the Iraqi people and
> compel the Iraqi armed forces to surrender en masse. According to one
> press
> preview, US and British forces "plan to launch the deadliest first night
> of
> air strikes on a single country in the history of air power. Hundreds of
> targets in every region of Iraq will be hit simultaneously." Estimates of
> likely Iraqi civilian casualties from the immediate impact of bombs and
> missiles range from thousands to hundreds of thousands, and even higher
> when
> the long-term effects are included.
>
> Lie No. 12: "As our coalition takes their power, we will deliver the food
> and medicine you need."
>
> This is particularly cynical, since the immediate consequence of Bush's
> 48-hour ultimatum was the withdrawal of all UN humanitarian aid workers
> and
> the shutdown of the oil-for-food program, which underwrites the feeding of
> 60 percent of Iraq's population. As for medicine, the US has
> systematically
> deprived the Iraqi people of needed medicine for the past 12 years,
> insisting that even the most basic medical supplies, like antibiotics and
> syringes, be banned as "dual-use" items that could be used in a program of
> biological warfare.
>
> Lie No. 13: "We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help
> you
> to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free."
>
> The goal of the Bush administration is to install a US puppet regime in
> Baghdad, initially taking the form of an American military dictatorship.
> It
> is no exaggeration to say that the US government has been the leading
> promoter of dictatorships around the world, from Pinochet of Chile to
> Suharto of Indonesia to Saddam Hussein himself, who, according to one
> recent
> report, got his political start as an anti-communist hit-man working in a
> CIA-backed plot to assassinate Iraq's left-nationalist President Qasem in
> 1959.
>
> A classified State Department report described by the Los Angeles Times of
> March 14 not only concluded that a democratic Iraq was unlikely to arise
> from the devastation of war, it suggested that this was not even desirable
> from the standpoint of American interests, because "anti-American
> sentiment
> is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of
> Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States."
>
> Lie No. 14: "Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American
> people
> can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war and every measure
> will be taken to win it."
>
> This combines a lie and a brutal truth. The Bush administration has taken
> every possible measure to insure that war takes place, viewing the
> resumption of UN weapons inspections with barely disguised hostility and
> directing its venom against those countries that have suggested a
> diplomatic
> settlement with Iraq is achievable. In prosecuting the war, the Bush
> administration is indeed prepared to use "every measure," up to an
> including
> nuclear weapons, in order to win it.
>
> Lie No. 15: "War has no certainty except the certainty of sacrifice."
>
> There will be colossal sacrifices for the Iraqi people, and sacrifices in
> blood and economic well-being for the American people as well. But for
> Bush'
> s real constituency, the wealthiest layer at the top of American society,
> there will be no sacrifices at all. Instead, the administration is seeking
> a
> tax cut package of over $700 billion, including the abolition of taxation
> on
> corporate dividends. Major US corporations are in line to reap hundreds of
> millions of dollars in profits from the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure
> shattered by the coming US assault. These include the oil construction
> firm
> Halliburton, which Vice President Cheney headed prior to joining the Bush
> administration, and which continues to include Cheney on its payroll.
>
> Lie No. 16: "[T]he only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to
> apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do
> so."
>
> Every aggressor claims to deplore the suffering of war and seeks to blame
> the victim for resisting, and thus prolonging the agony. Bush is no
> different. His hypocritical statements of "concern" for the Iraqi people
> cannot disguise the fact that, as many administration apologists freely
> admit, this is "a war of choice"-deliberately sought by the US government
> to
> pursue its strategic agenda in the Middle East.
>
> Lie No. 17: "The terrorist threat to America and the world will be
> diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."
>
> No one, even in the American military-intelligence complex, seriously
> believes this. US counter-terrorism officials have repeatedly said that a
> US
> conquest and occupation of Iraq, by killing untold thousands of Arabs and
> Muslims and inflaming public opinion in the Arab world and beyond, will
> spark more terrorism, not less.
>
> Lie No. 18: "We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far
> greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on
> all free nations would be multiplied many times over."
>
> This is belied by the record of the past twelve years, which has seen a
> steady decline in Iraqi military power. Saddam Hussein has never been a
> threat to any "free nation," if that term has any meaning, only to the
> reactionary oil sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf and to neighboring Iran, all
> ruled by regimes that are as repressive as his.
>
> Lie No. 19: "As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also
> honor
> the deepest commitments of our country."
>
> The demands of the world were expressed by the millions who marched in
> cities throughout the world on February 15 and March 15 to oppose a
> unilateral US attack on Iraq. Bush seeks to have it both ways-claiming to
> enforce previous Security Council resolutions against Iraq ("the just
> demands of the world"), while flagrantly defying the will of the majority
> of
> the Security Council, the majority of the world's governments, and the
> vast
> majority of the world's people.
>
> Lie No. 20: "Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are
> deserving and capable of human liberty... The United States with other
> countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region."
>
> For "the Iraqi people," substitute "the Egyptian people," "the people of
> the
> Arabian peninsula," "the Pakistani people" or those of other US-backed
> dictatorships, not to mention the Palestinians who live under a brutal
> Israeli occupation that is supported by Washington. Does the US government
> believe that any of them are "deserving and capable of human liberty?"
> When
> the parliament of Turkey, under the pressure of popular opposition, voted
> to
> bar the US from using Turkish territory to invade Iraq, the Bush
> administration appealed to the Turkish military to pressure the government
> into overturning this democratic decision.
>
> See Also:
> The Bush administration repudiates international law
> [18 March 2003]
> The Azores summit: Bush sets deadline for US aggression against Iraq
> [17 March 2003]
>
>
>>
>> He also has to be aware by now that while there is no iraq connection to
>> 9/11, there are Iraq connections to Al-Qaeda.
>>
>> He also has to know that other nations bowed out of being in the
>> collation because of them being bribed WITH OIL by Saddam Hussain. He
>> must know that if France and Germany were not taking oil kickbacks from
>> Saddam and promising him that there would not be a war, Saddam might
>> have cried uncle without one.
>>
>> But why should he? He felt comfortable that his collusion of the UN
>> would keep the US off his back and he also had a couple hundred thousand
>> nit wits protesting this war before it even started.
>>
>> Surely, the US would back down from the pressure, so no need to
>> cooperate... right?
>>
>> So, yeah, Saddam had no WMD's. But now, the UN, who said he had no WMD's
>> are worried about missing nuclear equipment from Iraq that can be used
>> to make Nuclear weapons.
>>
>> Huh? Ummm... If equipment is missing from Iraq that can make Nuclear
>> weapons, doesn't that mean that Iraq had equipment that can make Nuclear
>> weapons?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 3_D wrote:
>> >
>> > "jasmine" <> wrote in message
>> > news:ckhc4n$8g7$...
>> > >
>> > > "vonroach" <> wrote in message
>> > > news:...
>> > >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:11:25 +1300, "jasmine"
>> > >> <> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >Sure...just like both the Catholic Church and Galileo skewed the
>> > >> >"half-truths" as facts to support their agendas. It happened that
>> > >> >Galileo
>> > >> >was mostly right, and the Church wrong... but we will not split
> hairs,
>> > > eh?
>> > >>
>> > >> You see some connection between the Catholic Church/Galileo and
>> > >> Moore/Limbaugh? Jazzy, you are ready for the psychiatrist couch,
>> > >> before you require restraints. Yours aren't `half-truths', they are
>> > >> wild delusions.
>> > >
>> > > Why? The point is that there is not necessarily a "middle ground" in
> this
>> > > debate.
>> > >
>> > > E.G. the earth did not go around the sun sometimes, and the sun went
>> > > around
>> > > the earth the other...(Which is what Galileo was put under house
> arrest
>> > > for
>> > > by the Church.)
>> > >
>> > > Bush lied. No WMD. No al Qaeda 9/11 connection. But there is much
>> > > oil.
>> > > Bush's lieutenants Rumsfeld and co all supported Saddam and other
> worse
>> > > dictators (and still do!) as they crushed democracy movements, yet we
>> > > expect
>> > > to believe that they now uphold democracy when it suites?!
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > Kerry also lied then.
>> > FACT: He actually stated, on several occasions, that Saddam had
> WMD's.( He
>> > was on the Senate intelligence committee)
>> > FACT: Eight other nations and their intelligence agencies also stated
> that
>> > Saddam had WMD's.
>> > FACT: Kerry voted for the second Gulf War, but guess what?
>> > FACT: He voted against the first Gulf War!!!!! The United States
> established
>> > a broad-based international coalition to confront Iraq militarily and
>> > diplomatically. The military coalition consisted of Afghanistan,
> Argentina,
>> > Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia,
> Denmark,
>> > Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait,
> Morocco,
>> > the Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland,
>> > Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria,
> Turkey,
>> > the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
>> > The
> war
>> > also was financed by countries which were unable to send in troops.
> Saudi
>> > Arabia and Kuwait were the main donors. More than $53 billion was
> pledged
>> > and received. President George Bush waited two days after the UN
> deadline
>> > for Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait before ordering the Coalition to begin
>> > a ctionagainstIraq.
>
>

(L.Clark) wrote:

<snip>

>Also, just ignore the rightwing idiots that try to pull you down.
>Don't even respond to their posts, it's not worth it.

what a lovely post

> > visits from Ayman al-Zawahiri (Al Qaeda's#2)there was little connection
> > before the war... Geez!
> > Except maybe for the training camps that Al Qaeda trained in and the
> > visits from Ayman al-Zawahiri (Al Qaeda's#2)there was little connection
> > before the war... Geez!
>
> GEEZ Michael these examples are well known urban myths.


(sigh) Back in 2002 on Nightline an Iraqi intelligence man now in prison
said he was present when al-Zawahiri visited Baghdad.

on the Clinton Justice department indictment of Bin Laudin it said:

"Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that
al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular
projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would
work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

I marvel at your ability to call the facts against your position "Urban
Myths" but hey, if you buy "Fahrenheit 9/11" I suppose your perspective
is totally screwed to begin with.

Fortunately though, the people you constantly assail will continue to
make it safer for you to have totally irresponsible positions about the
security of this country. The hard, messy, thankless work will continue
to be done and you will continue to benefit from it with the continued
freedom to bitch and moan about those very people(just like Kerry and
just like Moore).




> > I'm glad you were able to poll most legal experts to determine the
> > legality of the war.
>
> "It is the overwhelming consensus of the world's foremost international law
> experts that: (1) UN Secretary General Annan's opinion is correct (i.e.,
> true) because the Iraq War was, indeed, illegal.."
>
> "Obviously, this dispute raises a legal question: "Whose opinion is correct,
> and whose is incorrect?" Additionally, we should be asking ourselves: "Who
> decides? (i.e., 'Whose jurisprudential opinion shall be dispositive for
> purposes of resolving this dispute?')"
>
> It seems eminently reasonable -- even for the disputants -- to conclude that
> the optimal source of guidance on this question of international law would
> have to be the world's foremost experts in the field of international law.
> Hence, the UN's chief and the coalition's leaders need to know how the
> world's top international law experts would resolve their jurisprudential
> dispute. And we, the people, need to know who's right and who's wrong here.
>
> Realistically, one cannot seriously expect the disputants -- much less their
> national electorates -- to wade through numerous legal documents, most of
> which contain rigorous and not-occasionally tedious reasoning, to find the
> correct answer. Thus, it seems prudent to proceed directly to the world's
> most authoritative answer to our pressing question du jour: "Was the Iraq
> War legal, or illegal, under international law?"
>
> And The World's Most Authoritative Answer Is ... Among the world's foremost
> experts in the field of international law, the overwhelming jurisprudential
> consensus is that the Anglo-American invasion, conquest, and occupation of
> Iraq constitute three phases of one illegal war of aggression. [3]
>
> Moreover, these experts in the international law of war deem both preventive
> wars and preemptive strikes to be euphemistic subcategories of outlawed wars
> of aggression.
>
> And the experts' answer would hold true regardless of whether their
> governing legal authority was: (A) the UN Security Council Resolutions that
> were passed to implement the conflict-resolution provisions of the UN
> Charter; or (B) prior treaties and juridical holdings which have long since
> become general international law. [4]
>
> Readers who need to "trust but verify" (i.e., to corroborate) for themselves
> that the experts' overwhelming opinion is exactly as stated above should
> read a document entitled "15 January 2003." (Find it by scrolling down
> approximately one-fourth of the way, after you've clicked onto this ES
> website: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm "The Legality Of The
> Iraq War" .) Why?
>
> That document was drafted and signed by the world's foremost international
> law experts -- the prestigious International Commission of International Law
> Jurists -- to provide ultimate proof of their authoritative opinion
> concerning the legal status of war against Iraq. Furthermore, this large
> body of eminent international law experts explicitly stated that they'd
> drafted their legal document in order to advise Messrs. Bush and Blair prior
> to the invasion: (1) that it would be blatantly illegal under international
> law for the Anglo-American belligerents to invade Iraq; and (2) that their
> joint decision as Commanders-in-Chief to commence hostilities would
> constitute prosecutable war crimes.
>
> Skeptical readers who don't regard this highly-authoritative conclusion as
> an adequate answer are invited to undertake the legal reasoning for
> themselves at the ES website. Note that every applicable Article in the UN
> Charter, and every relevant UN Security Council Resolution, is cited and
> analyzed therein. And readers who continue to scroll down the ES website
> will find a succession of articles which summarize the opinions of
> noteworthy individual experts on international law. These, too, strongly
> confirm that the invasion of Iraq constituted an illegal war of aggression
> under international law. [5]
>
> Finally, ambitious readers will learn what non-credible source was most
> responsible for propagating the fictitious pre-war claim that Saddam
> Hussein's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the WTC and the
> Pentagon (hint: yet another uncredentialed neocon think-tanker from the
> thoroughly-discredited American Enterprise Institute).
>
> Three Conclusions It is the overwhelming consensus of the world's foremost
> international law experts that: (1) UN Secretary General Annan's opinion is
> correct (i.e., true) because the Iraq War was, indeed, illegal; and
>
> (2) the opinion of the "Coalition of the Willing's" leaders is incorrect
> (i.e., false) because their Iraq War was NOT legal.
>
> (3) Therefore, Americans must break free of the neocons' self-delusional
> groupthink mentality by learning to differentiate between fact and truth,
> which are all-too-easily confused. For instance, it's an undeniable fact
> that Messrs. Bush and Cheney have been arguing along the campaign trail that
> "The Iraq War was legal!" Nevertheless, the mere fact that they've been
> vehemently arguing that point certainly does NOT make it true! Their
> argument is flawed by a logical fallacy called an ipse dixit (i.e.,
> "something asserted but not proved"). As we've already seen, their argument
> is just plain WRONG AS A MATTER OF LAW! Therefore, Messrs. Bush and Cheney
> are making a false argument (i.e., deceptively asserting something that is
> untrue).
>
> The Bottom Line Americans should reject the temptation to vote for Messrs.
> Bush and Cheney, because: (1) both men were advised beforehand that their
> decision to commence the invasion of Iraq would be blatantly illegal under
> international law; (2) they invaded nonetheless, and now they're cynically
> attempting to mislead the public again by falsely arguing that "The Iraq War
> was legal!"; (3) however, their argument is legally-meritless nonsense --
> the current equivalent of their earlier false argument that torture is a
> legal method for the US military's interrogation of prisoners; (4) they've
> repeatedly demonstrated their disdain for universal human rights and
> democratic governance under the rule of law; and
>
> (5) the 21st-century world isn't Tombstone's OK Corral and they certainly
> aren't Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday -- however much they might wish us to
> believe that they are! [6]
>
> ENDNOTES
>
> [1] Read this 9-16-04 PI article by clicking on these blue words:
> http://www.politinfo.com/articles/ar...9_16_4815.html "UN Says
> Nothing New In Annan's 'Illegal War' Comment". Also see this 9-17-04 GU
> article, which contends that UN Secretary General Annan's statement wasn't
> his long-held opinion, but is new and belated:
> http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...306642,00.html "The War
> Was Illegal"
>
> [2] Read this 9-17-04 JO article by clicking on these blue words:
> http://snipurl.com/94y0 "Bush Joins Coalition Leaders In Defending War
> Against Iraq"
>
> [3] Read the 9-15-04 ES's indispensable analysis by clicking on these blue
> words: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm#TOP Legality of the Iraq
> War. If the click-on doesn't link, paste this URL into your webserver:
> http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm [Skeptical readers should not
> read to confirm their biases, but instead should set their biases aside
> until they've finished reading all of the legal arguments on this website,
> which will take awhile.]
>
> [4] There seems to be one relevant omission from the ES website. General
> international law could have been be cited as an alternative basis for
> proving the Iraq War's illegality by analyzing these authoritative
> precedents: (A) the Kellogg-Briand Pact of Paris (192; and (B) the
> Charters, Principles, Indictments, and Holdings from the International
> Military Tribunals at Nüremberg and Tokyo (1945-4.
>
> [5] Generally speaking, legal opinions offered by government attorneys are
> NOT considered to be authoritative because: (a) they're drafted in the
> adversarial mode of an advocate, often under self-interested political
> pressure from the executive branch; (b) even at its best, their reasoning
> tends toward casuistry, reflecting Cicero's injudicious maxim,"salus populi
> suprema lex esto" (De Legibus, III, 3.8: "Let the welfare of the people be
> the supreme law!" Or the Bushites' tortuous translation thereof: "We feel
> that we can legally torture our prisoners now if it might save our people
> later!"); and (c) for an apt example, see the history of the Third Reich's
> attorneys Hans Frank and Wilhelm Frick, whose pre-war legal advice to
> Reichsführer Hitler was that Germany could use the pretext of an imminent
> threat to "preemptively" invade Poland, for which war crime they were both
> tried, sentenced, and hanged to death by the International Military Tribunal
> at Nüremberg. Note bene, Attorney General Ashcroft and Bush administration
> "torture memo" attorneys Bybee, Chertoff, Gonzales, Haynes and Woo!
>
> [6] Read Douglas Jehl's 9-16-4 CD/SPI article by clicking on these blue
> words: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0916-02.htm "CIA Analysis
> Holds Bleak Vision For Iraq's Future". Also see the 9-16-04 Dreyfuss Report
> column: http://tompaine.com/archives/the_dreyfuss_report.php "Annan For
> President"
>
> Author: Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D., is the Executive Director of the
> American Center for International Law ("ACIL"). <>
>
> Maybe they forgot that the terms of the treaty that
> > ended Gulf War '91 gave us the right to go back in again should Saddam
> > not abide by the US and UN inspections and restrictions. Saddam gave the
> > finger to the US and bribed the UN. Clinton should've done what Bush did
> > years ago but he was too busy getting blow jobs from heavyset interns
> > (after sticking cigars in her ****) and blowing up Aspirin factories
> > when he wanted to turn the media's attention from him committing
> > perjury.