Condi"I want to remind people that we are in Iraq under a UN mandate"

I believe those were the exact words that came out of her mouth.

She also added that the President was only doing his Constitutional duty which is to defend the country and that he never did anything illegal (in reagards to the domestic spying that the NYT finally reported), how she knows everything the President has done over the last four years was not asked (couric) or explained.

In the discussion of the Iraqi vote yesterday Condi through this one in there "I want to remind people that we are in Iraq under a UN mandate"

No video available yet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032633/

and the wingnuts will believe.
:rofl:

my (censored)

hello... :argh:




peace

she is also a half human throw back to a time of make believe.

Repeat it often enough and people will believe it.

Iraq War Was Illegal and Breached UN Charter, Says Annan (September 16, 2004)

In a BBC interview Annan explicitly stated that military action violated the UN Charter, despite US claims that their actions were an act of self-defense and therefore in accordance with UN rules.

Mr Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with its demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to determine what those consequences were.

(Guardian) http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2004/0916illegal.htm


And, of course, Bush sidestepped the language in the U.S. Congress resolution, the IWR, that directed him to return to the U.N. Security Council and he rushed to invade.

I was wondering if there was some sort of language that they stuck in to a UN resolution that in some sort of way mandates or okays our being there.

* US/UK draft resolution, May 2004
o On 23 May, the US and UK circulated a draft resolution to govern the transfer of power to a caretaker Iraqi government-
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_05_04iraqdraftscr.pdf http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5052147/ )
___________________________________________________

1518 (24 November 2003)

* Establishes a committee (the 1518 committee) to identify resources which should be transferred to the Development Fund for Iraq. This replaced some of the post-sanctions work of the '661 committee', which officially ceased to exist on 22 November 2003

* Adopts guidelines on the interpretation of resolution 1483's requirements for transfer of resources to the Development Fund for Iraq. The guidelines have been published as SC/7791 IK/356 (12 June 2003) and SC/7831 IK/372 (29 July 2003)

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2003/res1518.pdf
______________________________________________________

# 1511 (16 October 2003)
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2003/res1511.html

* This resolution:
o mandates the UN to 'strengthen its vital role in Iraq' (para 8)
o 'underscores...the temporary nature of the Coalition Provisional Authority' (para 1), welcomes the Governing Council and its ministers as "the principal bodies of the Iraqi interim administration" (para 4), and supports moves towards self-government under its auspices(para 3)
o invites the Governing Council to draw up, by 15 December, a timetable for drafting a constitution and holding elections, in cooperation with, and assisted by, the CPA and the UN representative (para 7 & 8). Requests the CPA to report to the Security Council on progress towards the transfer of power (para 6)
o authorises a multinational security force, and urges states to contribute to it and to the reconstruction of Iraq (para 13 & 14). Requests states to contribute financially (para 20), including at a Donors Conference (para 21), by providing required resources (para 22) and by transferring assets of the former regime to the Development Fund for Iraq (para 24)
o Requests the Secretary General to report on UN operations in Iraq (para 12). Requests the US to report, at least every 6 months, on military matters (para 25). Decides that the Security Council should review the mission of the UN force within a year, and that its mandate will expire once power has been transferred to an Iraqi government (para 15)
o Reiterates the demand made in Resolution 1483 for an International Advisory and Monitoring Board to supervise administration of the Development Fund for Iraq (para 23)
* Three earlier US drafts for this resolution were made public, on 4 September, 1 October and 13 October 2003. Postings to the CASI discussion list summarise differences between the first and second drafts, and between the second and third drafts. Amendments to the first draft were publicly proposed by France and Germany, and by Syria. Several of the Franco-German proposals were incorporated into the resolution.
_______________________________________

# 1500 (14 August 2003)
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2003/res1500.pdf

* Establishes UN Assistance Mission for Iraq, as proposed by the Secretary General in a report on July 17
* Welcomes creation of Governing Council
_____________________________________________

# 1490 (3 July 2003)
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2003/res1490.pdf

* Disbands the UN Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission (UNIKOM), and removes the demilitarised zone betweeen Iraq and Kuwait. Comes into force on 6 October 2003.
_________________________________________________

# 1483 (22 May 2003)
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2003/res1483.pdf

* Lifts non-military sanctions (para 10)
* Recognises Britain and the United States as occupying powers ('The Authority'), and calls on them to attempt to improve security and stability, and provide opportunities for the Iraqis to determine their political future. Creates position of UN Special Representative to Iraq, to coordinate UN activity. Requires establishment of Development Fund for Iraq
* Summaries and analysis can be found on pages 10-13 of the Open Society Institute paper "Reconstructing Iraq: a guide to the issues" (http://www.osi-dc.org/reconstructing_iraq.pdf) and in this article from the American Society of International Law (http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh107.htm) A Parliamentary research paper (2 June 2003) provides a British government perspective.(http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-051.pdf)

* Initial US-UK draft (9 May)(http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2003/0509postwardraft.htm)

* Revised US-UK-Spain draft (15 May)(http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2003/0515reviseddraft.htm)

* The Open Society Institute criticized aspects of this resolution, and suggested changes to allow greater supervision of the occupying powers
http://www.osi-dc.org/un_resolution.htm
http://www.osi-dc.org/draftresolution_memo_052003.pdf

sort of.

Man I need more coffee before I start reading all that. Good work. thanks.

This appears to me to be after the fact. So maybe she technically could say that we ARE under a mandate but of course that is the result of being the occupying power so there wasn't much of a decision to make there.

Am I reading that right?

that the UN initially approved of our invasion to those who care to use that as justification, but it is after the fact of an invasion that the head said was illegal. I believe Annan wanted to make clear that unilateral invasion of sovereign nations is illegal and would not be sanctioned. Small consolation, not much of an example with the subsequent approval by them of the U.S. as occupiers in control of assets and the like.

just like "no automaticity" before the invasion.

I know people praise them for having their ducks in a row and being so (creepily) on message but in fact they simply have their lie figured out and while everyone else is dealing with things in a real world common sense way they just float along continuing to take advantage of people thinking that they finally are going to play by some sort of rules. Any questions are deflected until after the act is completed and then they act like the matter has already been discussed.

Here is another way of looking at it. Sorry about all the *'s

You can criticize Bush* at any time other than the follow:

BEFORE he completely screws up. That is being an "obstructionist".

WHILE he is completely screwing up or WHILE he is covering up the screw up. That is "not offering positive alternatives"

AFTER he screws up. That is "Monday morning quarterbacking" or "revisionist history"** take your pic.

___________________________________________

*let's assume that, for brevity, that he has an actual function and is actually in charge***.

** see "Links to terrorism/WMD/a threat" changing to "freedom is on the march".

**** relax, we know he isn't at least we PRAY**** he isn't.

****even evil godless communist liberal types are willing to say a few words on bended knee just in case. OH PLEASE GOD NO... that sort of thing.

"We got the intelligence wrong, we underprepared for the war, underestimated the resistance, . . . but, now we're in this and have to finish it because if we don't it'll get worse (and if we stop doing it and it fails it's your fault for making us stop)

really? What is the job?

That has surely been posted here before but that hit me this morning. Have they ever been asked what the job is? Do they know? Are they willing to say?

Having read "The Last True Story I will ever tell" and seeing "Gunners Palace" I find it impossible to imagine that any of the day to day demands for accountability even get to those guys in the form of news let alone that it bothers them in the least. THey have way more important things to worry about (like seeing tomorrow as they awoke today) and most of those guys have thought about this since the day they signed up (before really).

Yeah that is a good one bigtree-they can't be wrong and you (us) can't be right.

He looks like he's up to something--I like that.

A true pathological liar is fairly rare in the wild. But Condi is an excellent example and should be studied so we can understand pathological liars more fully.

The Framing Project

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001118.php

That's really what she said, just misquoted.

getting inspectors from them to go into Iraq, then end running the entire body when it was clear there would be no security council approval of stopping the inspections to invade. Bush used the U.N. resolutions that he favored and ignored the rest. It's completely dishonest to use the U.N. in this manner, like a sly dog.

What was that vote about? Just trying to get all the facts out so people don't sound stupid debating this around the water cooler. . . . . . . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Legality_of_the_invasion

International law
Resolution 1441, drafted and accepted unanimously the year before the invasion, threatened "serious consequences" to Iraq in case Iraq did not comply with all conditions. Russia, the People's Republic of China, and France made clear in a joint statement that this did not authorize the use of force but a further resolution was needed. This was also the position of the UK and the US at the time the resolution was decided. On the day of the vote the US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, said that in the event of a "further breach" by Iraq, Resolution 1441 would require that "the matter will return to the Council for discussions."<104>

Until a few days before the war, it was the position of the UK, the main US ally in the war, that a further resolution would be desirable before the UK would go to war.

Some have said that the US and other coalition governments' invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked assault on an independent country which breached international law. Under Article 2, Number 4 of the UN Charter, "All Members shall refrain... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..." This is known as the "Prohibition of Aggression." For the use of force other than in self defence, it is absolute without the positive sanction of the security council under Article 42. Resolution 1441 was not intended by China, Russia and France to authorise war. The coalition formed around the USA argued that another understanding of the resolution is possible, although Kofi Annan, speaking on behalf of the UN charter, declared: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." <105>

The Bush administration argued that the UN Security Council Resolutions authorizing the 1991 invasion, in addition to Resolution 1441, gave legal authority to use "all necessary means," which is diplomatic code for going to war. This war ended with a cease fire instead of a permanent peace treaty. Their view was that Iraq had violated the terms of the cease-fire by breaching two key conditions and thus made the invasion of Iraq a legal continuation of the earlier war. If a war can be reactivated ten years after the fact, it would imply that any nation that has ever been at war that ended in a cease-fire (such as Korea) could face war for failing to meet the conditions of the cease-fire. Such is the purpose of using a cease-fire agreement in place of a peace treaty; the resumption of war is the penalty for, and thus deterrent of, engaging in the prohibited action(s). For instance, in WWII, the state of war with Germany did not end until 19 October 1951 and with Japan, not until 28 April 1952<106>.

Since the majority of the United Nations security council members (both permanent and rotating) did not support the attack, it appears that they viewed the attack as invalid under any resolution still in effect in March, 2003. Both Kofi Annan, current Secretary-General of the United Nations, and former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, as well as several nations, say that the attack violated international law as a war of aggression since it lacked the validity of a U.N. Security Council resolution to authorize military force, and was not an act of defence, and so violated the UN charter. However, none have called for the security council to consider sanctions against the United States or the other nations involved, both because of an effort to restore warmer relationships with the US, and because the attempt would be futile since the US has a veto in the Security Council.

The United States and United Kingdom claimed, and continue to claim, that it was a legal action which they were within international law to undertake. Some in the media have called the good faith of the Security Council into question on this matter. <107> <108> One argument is that the United Nations itself, along with the three opponents of the Iraq War on the Security Council, France, Russia, and China, all benefited financially (in some cases, perhaps illegally) from transactions with the Saddam Hussein regime under the Oil for Food program; <109> and that the leaders of these three countries, along with Kofi Annan, fought against a second UN resolution not out of higher principle but in order to keep these contracts. Additionally, the resistance of the Security Council and the UN as a whole to the invasion of Iraq has been attributed to Anti-Americanism and a resentment of the cultural and economic dominance of the USA. In the case of France, it has also been attributed an attempt to court the Arab world and its local Muslim population.

<110>

On 28 April 2005, the UK government published the full advice given by the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith on 7 March 2003 on the legality of the war. The publication of this document followed the leaking of the summary to the press the day before. In a Labour press conference, Tony Blair responded to a question from journalist Jon Snow asking whether the full report could be published by saying 'we may as well, you've seen most of it already'. In the document, Lord Goldsmith weighs the different arguments on whether military action against Iraq would be legal without a second UN Resolution. Saying that "regime change cannot be the objective of military action," it clearly stated that invasion for the purpose of regime change was illegal. <111>

that Saddam asked us to take over as he stepped down from his position as president of Iraq . . .

Don't believe it could happen? Don't be surprised if it is floated . . .

Your "husband" is probably going to tell you to shut up, Condi, and if he doesn't, his political hacks or eventually his team of lawyers will.

"I think we went in on a world-wide mandate. Screw just a UN mandate, or an election mandate. Yeah, that's the ticket.":crazy:

reading the lines they feed her.

But shame on her for allowing herself to be used this way.

The evil she is doing is written all over her face.

Watch Rice and see how she constantly shakes her head back and forth in a "NO! don't believe anything that I am saying it is all a LIE" kind of way.

It would take a lo-o-o-o-ng time to figure out what makes her tick.

But the outcome of her choices is painfully obvious.

She had opportunity after opportunity to nail Rice to the wall, but she never took a shot.

I'm convinced that if Condi offered Couric a million bucks to have her way with Couric for one night, she'd take it.

The Bush turds haven't done a legal thing since they took office.



Details 'n' story:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html

It's no theory. It's a conspiracy.

If it was mandated by the UN the least the UN could do would be to help in the invasion...

Condi--just give it up. Give your boss a big sloppy kiss and go off somewhere to rot

It's hard to keep track.

you ain't in Iraq, so don't use this "we" shit. Until you are at the receiving end of an AK shut the fuck up.

she is a fucking asshole.


colossal racist cowardly failure*.

You've become irrelevant!

The Bush admin pulled the vote when they realized it wouldn't pass, after insisting that they would do nothing without a vote. So, Condi is left trying to explain how it is that they are enforcing a UN Resolution, despite the fact that the Security Council did not authorize the US to enforce that resolution in the way that the US has gone about it. There is no UN mandate because there was no Security Council vote to authorize the use of force. This is really historical revisionisn of first magnitude on Condi's part, or, as we used to say, and out an out lie.

Bolton works fast, eh?

I can't wait for a time when I won't have to hear the phrase "the president didn't do anything illegal" in political discussions. How fucking sad is it that she has to get her lying ass up on the tv and reassure us that the president isn't a criminal.
Spare me.
Please.
Spare me.

You want to remind people. :eyes: Shut the hell up.