I have had this very annoying and frustrating discussion with my repug friend as to why we invaded Iraq. She keeps telling me it was because of "a violation of resolutions," and I keep saying WMD, al Qaeda, 9/11, blah, blah. I have also noticed that O'Reilly (on the few occasions I have listened to him -- I have since taken the pledge) keeps referring to the violation of resolutions also. RedState refers to the resolutions.
I finally e-mailed my friend the link to the Joint Resolution. She "accidentally" deleted it the first time, so I resent it. She has now allegedly read it in its entirety.
Here is the complete text of the
Joint Resolution. to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.
Whereas it does refer to Iraq's "continued violation of resolutions," it also contains language such as, "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."
No evidence of chemical or biological weapons, no indication of seeking nuclear weapons capability, no evidence of Iraq supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
"Whereas members of al Qaeda, 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." No Iraqi ties to al Qaeda ever found. Of course, now there is, al Qaeda is in Iraq now because we invaded Iraq.
"Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;" Not a shred of evidence of this prior to our invasion.
"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" No weapons, no capability of launching attack against US.
"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;" Again, no connection between Iraq and 9/11.
Help me out here; put all of your partisan beliefs aside. Did congress vote to go to war in Iraq because Iraq had violated resolutions, or was it for all of the other reasons listed?
Does anyone believe that congress and the senate would have voted for this war based solely on violations of resolutions?