Difference between revisions of "US-Iraq/war/justifications"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 16: Line 16:
 
===Reference===
 
===Reference===
 
* Wikipedia: [[wikipedia:rationale for the Iraq War|rationale for the Iraq War]]
 
* Wikipedia: [[wikipedia:rationale for the Iraq War|rationale for the Iraq War]]
===Filed Links===
 
{{links.tagged}}
 
 
===News===
 
===News===
 
* '''2006-12-20''' [http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2076137.ece Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war]: The UK had no reasons to believe Iraq possessed significant chemical, bio, or nuclear warfare weapons. Also, "British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed."
 
* '''2006-12-20''' [http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2076137.ece Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war]: The UK had no reasons to believe Iraq possessed significant chemical, bio, or nuclear warfare weapons. Also, "British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed."

Revision as of 13:00, 17 January 2010

Great site. Keep doing.

Sources

2

3

  • 2003-07-14 President Reaffirms Strong Position on Liberia
    • final paragraph: "The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."

4

  • beingism: Charges and Evidence: Impeachment of George W. Bush:

Comments

Links

Reference

News

Commentary

Video

Quotes

  • "I thought they were out of their minds, once I realised that they weren't kidding. The most inappropriate, the most counterproductive thing we could've done would've been to invade Iraq and I rather thought that was self-evident." – Richard A. Clarke, former US Counter-Terrorism Advisor [1]

Related Information

  • "In 2003, Republicans refused to allow a vote on a bill introduced by Waxman that would have established an independent commission to review the false claims Bush made in asking Congress to declare war on Iraq. That same year, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Porter Goss, refused to hold hearings on whether the administration had forged evidence of the nuclear threat allegedly posed by Iraq. A year later the chair of the Government Reform Committee, Tom Davis, refused to hold hearings on new evidence casting doubt on the "nuclear tubes" cited by the Bush administration before the war. Sen. Pat Roberts, who pledged to issue a Senate Intelligence Committee report after the 2004 election on whether the Bush administration had misled the public before the invasion, changed his mind after the president won re-election. 'I think it would be a monumental waste of time to re-plow this ground any further,' Roberts said." [2]