I don't think it is seriously debatable that the reason the administration gave for the war on Iraq was : Imminent threat to the US due to a large scale build up of WMD, and collusion with Al-Quada

Since both of those turned out to be totally false

I believe there were 3 reasons:

1. revenge for King George I

2. oil

3. the economy was doing badly, and the war would take everyone eyes off the economy and onto the war which was a win-win situtation

I don't think it is seriously debatable that the reason the administration gave for the war on Iraq was : Imminent threat to the US due to a large scale build up of WMD, and collusion with Al-Quada

Congress has not formally declared war since World War II, even though the intervening years have witnessed substantial U.S. military involvement overseas.

This is not to say, however, that Congress has played no part in the decisions to commit troops. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution authorized military action in Vietnam. Similarly, Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq in 1991. And in September 2001, Congress authorized President Bush "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons . . . ."

But in each of these military conflicts, Congress stopped short of declaring war. Why?

One answer is that formal declarations of war are a relic of the Eighteenth Century. Modern military conflicts are too fluid, and arise too suddenly, for a declaration of war to serve any practical purpose.

Moreover, when Congress authorized military action against the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks, it did not know their precise identities. And to the extent that Congress understood al Qaeda to be the main enemy, a question arises as to whether it can declare war on an entity other than a state.

This explanation does not explain Congress's failure to declare war in other recent military conflicts, however, where there were clearly identifiable state enemies: Iraq in the Persian Gulf, and Yugoslavia in Kosovo. Yet in neither case did Congress declare war.

Indeed, in the Kosovo conflict, Congress did not even formally authorize the use of military force. Although the Senate passed a resolution authorizing air attacks, that resolution failed in the House of Representatives. But just over a week later, the House passed a bill funding the war anyway.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020306.html

rid the planet of the man whose ultimate goal in life was to dominate the ME in any way possible. It was clear when he invaded Iran, clear when he gassed the Kurds, by the desire for WMD (which was understood he had a fetish for), the brutal extermination of political opposition and clearer still when Kuwait was invaded.

So basically congress was not as sure as our president is on this war?

Congress gives ability to a single man to declare war

bucket: Saddam has a long history of aggression towards his neighbors. The Kurds are simply one instance in that history.

Congress, on a bi-partisan basis, is fed up with the Clinton
administration's do-nothing policy on Iraq.   Today, the "Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998" was introduced into the Senate and House.  Those
introducing the bill in the Senate were Sen. Majority Leader, Trent
Lott, [R, Miss], Sen. Bob Kerrey, [D. Ne], Sen. John McCain [R, Az],
Sen. Joseph Lieberman [D Conn] and Sen. Jon Kyl [R, Az].  Those
introducing the bill in the House were Rep. Benjamin Gilman [R, NY] and
Rep. Christopher Cox [R, Ca]

The most laughable part of this entire ordeal is that the reasons to go to war must be debated.

Then we have a president that states he used his information to warrant the war, a statement made over the lack of wmd being found, and we have top intelligence officers of our government stating that information was twisted in order to convince a public of the coalition.

Just admit it, The adminstration of King George II lied to the american people, and we are paying for it, not him.

King George?

about 2938745times I have had to read this kind of statement and about 2938745times I have asked this same question and not gotten a final definitive answer to the point where, if true and accurate, the president could be brought to trial and be impeached .

where is the actual proof of lies?

I would like for Amlord to explain to me how we can use the reason of 'national security' to attack Iraq.

The President and several of his administration have admitted there is no proof that there is a connection between the terrorist who attacked the wtc and Iraq.

So how can we use that excuse.

Just admit it, The adminstration of King George II lied to the american people, and we are paying for it, not him.

The two reasons authorizing the use of force against Iraq were national defense and enforcement of UN resolutions.

Just because they are both there, does not necessarily mean that both were invoked.

That being said, there is a national security issue at play here. It was not an imminent threat to the US, but then again neither were Kosovo, Libya, Iraq in 1991 or just about any other threat in which the US armed services were used to protect this country. Threats are relative. The threat of WMD proliferation is a real issue. The threat of a defiant dictator with a proven track record of WMD use is a real one, if not necessarily imminent.

George W. Bush pointed out in his 2003 State of the Union that Iraq was not an imminent threat. He said that we could not afford to wait until it was. You can feel free to disagree with that line of thinking, but it is entirely defensible. It has been defended by myself and many other members here.

The enforcement of UN resolutions alone authorized the Iraqi campaign.

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

In fact we were mislead and here's some proof.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/...ain577975.shtml



QUOTE 
Correspondent Scott Pelley has an interview with Greg Thielmann, a former expert on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Thielmann, a foreign-service officer for 25 years, now says that key evidence in the speech was misrepresented and the public was deceived. 




QUOTE 
Thielmann's last job at the State Department was director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs, which was responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Secretary Powell. He and his staff had the highest security clearances, and everything – whether it came into the CIA or the Defense Department – came through his office.

Thielmann was admired at the State Department. One high-ranking official called him honorable, knowledgeable, and very experienced.




QUOTE 
On Feb. 5, 2003, Secretary Powell presented evidence against Saddam to the U.N., and the speech represented a change in Powell’s thinking. Before 9/11, he said Saddam had “not developed any significant capability in weapons of mass destruction.” But two years later, he warned that Saddam had stockpiled those very weapons. 




QUOTE 
At the time of Powell's speech, Thielmann says that Iraq didn't pose an imminent threat to anyone: “I think it didn't even constitute an imminent threat to its neighbors at the time we went to war.”

But Thielmann also says that he believes the decision to go to war was made first, and then the intelligence was interpreted to fit that conclusion. For example, he points to the evidence behind Powell’s charge that Iraq was importing aluminum tubes to use in a program to build nuclear weapons. 




QUOTE 
Intelligence agents intercepted the tubes in 2001, and the CIA said they were parts for a centrifuge to enrich uranium - fuel for an atom bomb. But Thielmann wasn’t so sure. Experts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the scientists who enriched uranium for American bombs, advised that the tubes were all wrong for a bomb program. At about the same time, Thielmann’s office was working on another explanation. It turned out the tubes' dimensions perfectly matched an Iraqi conventional rocket.




QUOTE 
Thielmann says the nuclear case was filled with half-truths. So why would the Secretary take the information that Thielmann’s intelligence bureau had developed and turn it on its head?

“I can only assume that he was doing it to loyally support the President of the United States and build the strongest possible case for arguing that there was no alternative to the use of military force,” says Thielmann. 




QUOTE 
After the war, the White House said the African uranium claim was false and shouldn’t have been in the address. But at the time, it was part of a campaign that painted the intelligence as irrefutable. 




QUOTE 
But if there was no doubt in public, Thielmann says there was plenty of doubt in the intelligence community. He says the administration took murky information out of the gray area and made it black and white. 




QUOTE 
Satellite photos were also notoriously misleading, according to Steve Allinson, a U.N. inspector in Iraq in the months leading up to war.

Was there ever a time when American satellite intelligence provided Allinson with something that was truly useful?

“No. No, not to me. Not on inspections that I participated in,” says Allinson, whose team was sent to find decontamination vehicles that turned out to be fire trucks.

Another time, a satellite spotted what they thought were trucks used for biological weapons.

“We were told we were going to the site to look for refrigerated trucks specifically linked to biological agents,” says Allinson. “We found 7 or 8 of them I think in total. And they had cobwebs in them. Some samples were taken and nothing was found.” 



And this is just a little bit of the program on 60 minutes talking to people that do know the facts like in one of the earlier quotes I provided.
QUOTE 
Thielmann's last job at the State Department was director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs....He and his staff had the highest security clearances



So yes when you use certain information and twist it around until you get the conclusions you want yes you can be part of this adminstration.  

Simple Debate Topic: What was the administration's primary motivation for war in Iraq?

Occam's razor: It really is the oil.

Alright then, let us get into the details.

Lets us see this evidence gathered that Iraq positively had WMD. In other words, I'm looking to see the physical proof of WMD as gathered by the administration to confirm Bush's claims.



Let us see what UN resolutions regarding Iraq had been broken to the extent of necessary military force used by the United States alone.

There is something fishy going on when the vice president met privately numerous times with Ken Lay(Enron) to set up a energy plan for OUR COUNTRY.  The courts have requested that Cheney give up the minutes for those meetings.  He keeps delaying saying it was a private matter.  Hogwash.

Something people consider fishy isn't the same thing as a reasonable theory. There remains no plausibility to the assertion that the "war is for oil". The administration will have no long term control over Iraqi oil.

No matter how many "suspicious" meetings take place. If the supposed "crime" is itself impossible there is nothing underhanded taking place...

As for your comment that the adminstration will not have long term control over the oil.  Neither one of us knows what people in power have planned.  I am sure they are not going to email us and tell us their plans.

The only option that would make this oil conspiracy theory plausible is a rigged election or behind the scenes deals. Not an easy task in Iraq (understatement of the year). Then again the same effect could have been reached by lowering sanctions without the political risks associated with war. Indeed it would have been a good political move for Bush. The oil theory remains entirely implausible.

The Bush administration asked for input from environmental groups such as Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and others when formulating energy policy. According to the Times, the American Petroleum Institute made 25 recommendations to be included in the administration's plan, only four of which were adopted. Similarly, the National Mining Association had only two of its 20 recommendations included in the energy plan. Environmentalists fared far better: The administration adopted nearly half of the 17 recommendations in Natural Resources Defense Council’s report.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR40502.html

Supposedly worried that environmental groups were not consulted when the Bush administration developed its energy plan, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit to force the Department of Energy (DOE) to release documents revealing the names of consulted organizations. However, according to a series of articles in the Washington Times by Patrice Hill, a letter from the DOE to the General Accounting Office shows that the DOE did seek advice from many environmental groups, including NRDC. Some environmental groups declined to provide advice to the administration. The Times also reported that the NRDC initially did not return phone calls and messages from DOE, and later simply referred DOE to a pre-existing document they had released.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: To read Patrice Hill's series in the Washington Times, see: "Energy Sought Greens' Advice" at http://www.washtimes.com/business/20020327-71573628.htm (March 27), "Green Groups Back Off Energy Panel Complaints" at http://www.washtimes.com/business/20020328-13910220.htm (March 28) and "Greens Had Energy Plan Role" at http://www.washtimes.com/business/20020330-93683800.htm (March 30).

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR40502.html

It was about knowing of negotiations between Saddam and France, Germany, China and Russia to get all those pesky UN sanctions striped away in order for him to regain possession of not only Iraq's oil but the enormous wealth FROM it. "Get the sanctions off, get the US out of my hair and you get to keep your contracts France, Germany and Russia." Who has been the steady champions of Saddam throughout the 12 years? There's a saying about Chirac..."he never met a dictator he didn't like." How about delving into the relationships of these 3 countries and Saddam Hussein?

At the meeting Lay handed Cheney a memo that read in part: "The administration should reject any attempt to re-regulate wholesale power markets by adopting price caps...."

The day after he met with Lay, Cheney gave a rare phone interview to the Los Angeles Times that had one recurrent theme: Price caps were out of the question. Dismissing the strategy as "short-term political relief for the politicians," Cheney bluntly declared, "I don't see that as a possibility."

Cheney's prognosis was flawed; within days, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission agreed to price caps and the markets calmed down.

Ken Lay did ask Cheney to reject any attempt to re-regulate wholesale power markets by adopting price caps and a few days later the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission agreed to price caps. Cheney didn’t stop price caps.

No matter what Iraq said, it actually had to surrender some WMD's thus proving themselves guilty as charged. By not being able to do this they were proclaimed guilty by default.

I guess more along the lines, i am trying to really defeat some image that Americans have that is just not true. We claim Iraq is bad for violation of u.n sanctions and a host of things that are not turning out to be true, while we let other nations that are dangerous and are breaking u.n resolutions go on, and why?