That is a site with the resolution.

What was the real reason we “wanted” to remove Saddam? Was it oil or was it Saddam selling oil in euros and weakening the dollar? Was it because of the attempted assassination Saddam had planned?

One thing I think most Americans now believe is that even if Saddam had WMD someplace and moved it out of the nation, it wasn’t an eminent threat. There had to be other reasons for our “wanting” to go to war and remove Saddam.

We were willing to go to Iraq and bear the accusations of many, and yet, not willing to go into the area of Pakistan where al-Qaeda operates from and bear the accusations of unjust war in that nation. We are told that Pakistan is an “ally.” Yet, wouldn’t an ally welcome help in removing terrorists from their nation that threatened not only the U.S. but many nations with acts of terrorism?

For the defenders of the war, I can see many reasons in the violations of the cease fire that “justify” action. But, at the same time, see too much that indicates another agenda was more important in the decision to finally act after years of violations and even Clinton’s bombing of Iraq.

Maybe the truth was told. But, if it was, it wasn’t the whole truth and that may be what has so many people upset with this administration and Congress, for that matter. It is the same with our immigration/open border policy. Much isn’t being told the American people about why we want 67 to 100 million more people added to our population and its decaying infrastructure whether they are illegal or legal immigrants.

Very interesting post!!! THANKS

The United Nations Charter is one such treaty. Since the first Gulf War was a UN-sanctioned action, the cease fire under UNSC Resolution 687 is the UN saying “the war is over and these are the things we want Iraq to agree to do”. Bush claims that UNSC Resolution 1441 (2002) gave him authorization for the invasion of March 2003 because it *somehow* reversed the cease fire. (Under the UN Charter Article 42, the only two cases where one member nation may attack another member nation is (1) self-defense or (2)when specifically authorized by the UN.) Even a cursory read of 1441 shows no such authorization, which means the invasion is unilateral and, therefore, in violation of the UN Charter. Ergo, the Iraq War is both illegal and unconstitutional.

Because the Gulf War, Cease Fire, and sanctions were all made pursuant to the UN/International Law, it doesn’t matter if Congress approved the war and Bush signed off on it–it is still illegal.

It is also useful to note that Bush sold the war to the American people as self-defense (Iraq had WMD’s and was going to attack us with them), but told the UN/International community that Iraq’s feet-dragging over the inspections caused a “material breach” of the cease-fire and, as a result, it was justified for Bush to invade. If Bush had gone to the UNSC with a self-defense claim as justification for invasion, he would have been required to show where being attacked was imminent.

Re:Post 39 above……

OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In other words, nicely said!

Bart Brannon for U.S. Senate – Let’s fet back to fiscal reponsibility!

Quote:
But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government — not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/032-243a.htm
========================

Too often, when people refer to the “intent” of the Constitution, they refer to the debates in the Constitutional Convention where it was drafted. But, those debates weren’t published until after ratification. The debates referred to are the debates in the state conventions for ratification, usually.

The “intent” of the Constitution, according to those who drafted it, was not to be their “original intent” but the intent of the people which they said would come from how they legislated, ruled in Courts, and applied the Constitution. However, once that “intent” was established “by the people,” it would become the “precedent” for future generations and only Amendment would change that intent and the words and meaning found in the Constitution as interpreted by the people who ratified it.

Again, this whole system of government was based on the people, not politicians in Washington.

Thus, when you say, Bill, that I blame the people and not others, that isn’t true. I blame Bush for many things, including not sealing the border, no child left behind, the prescription drug program, how he fought this war in Iraq, the lack of spending constraint by Congress, the treasonist speeches on the nightly news that encourages al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups and give them “aid and comfort.” However, since we “aren’t in a declared war,” their speeches aren’t treason, technically.

Remember, we had people sent to prison for just protesting the draft during a “declared war.” One with speeches and one with a pamphlet and both cases were upheld by the Supreme Court. Think how much more destructive the politicians speeches have been to the military in the current situation. They were to keep those concerns behind closed doors and “fight” if necessary to do the right thing and reach the right decisions but, until they did, keep quiet in public. We are not a democracy. We are not a nation that is to determine war policy in public. But, when it isn’t “declared war” anything is “legal.” That is why I am so opposed to what is going on. There are no “rules” of engagement here or abroad that can be depended on. We fight based on the “will of the U.N., or the politicians, or some other nation (like Pakistan) or “the public” instead of with sound military reasoning that has only one goal, victory with clear cut goals.

But, ultimately, it is the people, who elect these people who are responsible and to blame. You can forgive the people for sometimes electing a bozo but for 70 years they have been electing bozos to one degree or another. Look how long Teddy Kennedy has been there and reelected or some of the others in both parties who live and breathe “pork” and uncontrolled spending. Neither party is leading this nation away from the train wreck and yet the people don’t look for a new party in any significant numbers because “it is just too much work” and “we might not win.” So, instead, of doing what they really believe, they “vote for the lesser of two evils.”

So, who is to blame for that?

Quote from Jefferson used:
and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
————————

The problem we face when we try to use any quotes from then, is that our “friends” who don’t want “original intent” say, all that went out the window with the 14th Amendment. Although the Courts for another 60 years didn’t change “original intent” on hardly anything, beginning in 1925, the Courts said the 14th had changed everything. It wasn’t the 14th that changed everything. It was the new interpretation of the application of the 14th that changed everything and from that point on, Congress and Presidents have assumed all kinds of powers and policy needs that were never allowed before.

And, until you have a Court that returns us to “original intent” where “we the people” make the changes through amendment, you won’t see Congress or Presidents give up their powers they believe are now “Constitutional” or at least “interpreted” as being so.

But, as long as “we the people” can elect our representatives, we are to blame for the mistakes our representatives make.