Perle admitted invasion was illegal

[Kamakazie Sith]

Oh please. "It's the Guardian, therefore it's all lies!"

Give me a break. This place isn't spacebattles. There are no bullshit 'second source' requirements here, nor are there rules against certain newspapers/media that some people may not like for whatever reason.

What's wrong with giving a second source to prove the validity of your claim? There are far too many webpages that tell fabricated stories.

Provided a second source is not an unreasonable request at all.

[Stuart Mackey]

Course with the source being The Guardian I don't intend to believe the article until it's confirmed by another source or three.

"In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing." "

What dont you get about this? do you think the Gardian made this up?

[Kamakazie Sith]

I think Perle is bullshitting big time. The old 'we are morally right, so everyone else is morally wrong' excuse. Unfortunatly it does not follow in this case or America would have delt with other fuckheads like or worse than Saddam. Perle also ignores the fact that Saddam the bad was never the reason for the invasion.

It is possible that our new policy may be just that. However, we can't handle Iraq, Afghanistan, and another country without spreading ourselves too thin.

However, I do see your point and it does make one think.

[Vympel]

What's wrong with giving a second source to prove the validity of your claim? There are far too many webpages that tell fabricated stories.

Provided a second source is not an unreasonable request at all.

How does a second source prove the validity of the Guardian's 'claim'? Quite frankly, I find the idea that the report of what Perle said is a 'claim' ludicrous- is every news report suspect unless they all back each other up (and what does that prove, really? You know that media work off their competitors all the time)?. This is a speech in London covered by a *gasp!* London newspaper. It's entirely unsurprising that the utternaces of this prominent neo-conservative yet not so prominent administration advisor is not being trumpeted from the rooftops.

[Darth Wong]

Oh please. "It's the Guardian, therefore it's all lies!"

Give me a break. This place isn't spacebattles. There are no bullshit 'second source' requirements here, nor are there rules against certain newspapers/media that some people may not like for whatever reason.

What's wrong with giving a second source to prove the validity of your claim? There are far too many webpages that tell fabricated stories.

Provided a second source is not an unreasonable request at all.

Not when the only criticism of the primary source is that it's biased. You must show a record of outright fraud before you can dismiss the factual data (as opposed to interpretive bits) of a news article.

[Axis Kast]

To approach the war as anything but legal would have been an extreme mistake. As much as the Bush administration failed to make its case before a majority of the global community, moving in direct contradiction of – or worse, without – the United Nations would have merely compounded the firestorm of criticism invited by the “with or against us” line of diplomacy.

Washington’s greatest problem is the charge of hegemony. The real root of street protests and popular criticism is America’s unavoidable primacy. From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, people have begun to question the value of an international state of affairs in which their governments deal more with items straight from Washington than domestic affairs at home. Worse, the failure of Hans Blix to turn up anything useful to the Bush administration’s case and our subsequent decision to forge ahead – regardless of its validity or invalidity –seemed to others clear evidence not only of their bondage to the American boat, but also their inability to determine – or even influence – its course at all.

Ignoring the United Nations outright would have unleashed a fury of criticism over unilateralism and left America with precious little ammunition against calls of unilateral warmongering. The United Nations might be inefficient and excessively divided, but it’s not something we want to displace or undo at this moment in time. When the strategy for confronting Hussein came together, justification was a good, strong bet. There was no reason not to expect that we’d be reaping rewards of popular support, and therefore no reason to risk the potential of appearing to legitimize from the outset any attacks on Washington’s credibility.

[Xon]

We knew it was illegal all along, but some people aren't satisfied unless an out-and-out admission is given~

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal
Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House

Come back when that changes. Till then its nothing but some guys personal opinion.

You'd think the supporters of the war couldn't possibly spin this, but they have, with the old argument that no one cares since the UN is worthless.

The UN is worthless in this case.

[Xon]

Oh please. "It's the Guardian, therefore it's all lies!"

Give me a break. This place isn't spacebattles. There are no bullshit 'second source' requirements here, nor are there rules against certain newspapers/media that some people may not like for whatever reason.

What's wrong with giving a second source to prove the validity of your claim? There are far too many webpages that tell fabricated stories.

Provided a second source is not an unreasonable request at all.

Not when the only criticism of the primary source is that it's biased. You must show a record of outright fraud before you can dismiss the factual data (as opposed to interpretive bits) of a news article.

You should always get more than one source. Especially when it is biased!

[Stuart Mackey]

What's wrong with giving a second source to prove the validity of your claim? There are far too many webpages that tell fabricated stories.

Provided a second source is not an unreasonable request at all.

Not when the only criticism of the primary source is that it's biased. You must show a record of outright fraud before you can dismiss the factual data (as opposed to interpretive bits) of a news article.

You should always get more than one source. Especially when it is biased!

Excuse me? did you not read the article in question? because if its untrue I am sure Perle will be sueing for libel. Perle was reported as saying
"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."
Are you suggesting he did not say this?

[Vympel]

Come back when that changes. Till then its nothing but some guys personal opinion.

One guy's personal opinion which just happens to be that of the same guy who was the recent head of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board and a key agitator for war in Iraq, along with Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld. The White House's delusional, "we know we're full of shit" proclamations about how legal it was only look weak when people on their own team admit it (after it doesn't matter, of course), and what the White House thinks about the war's legality is irrelevant. It is demonstrably illegal no matter what they say.

[Kamakazie Sith]

What's wrong with giving a second source to prove the validity of your claim? There are far too many webpages that tell fabricated stories.

Provided a second source is not an unreasonable request at all.

How does a second source prove the validity of the Guardian's 'claim'? Quite frankly, I find the idea that the report of what Perle said is a 'claim' ludicrous- is every news report suspect unless they all back each other up (and what does that prove, really? You know that media work off their competitors all the time)?. This is a speech in London covered by a *gasp!* London newspaper. It's entirely unsurprising that the utternaces of this prominent neo-conservative yet not so prominent administration advisor is not being trumpeted from the rooftops.

You're being a bit too sensitive about this situation and you're missing the point. I'm asking you what is wrong with asking for a second source?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Oh please. "It's the Guardian, therefore it's all lies!"

Give me a break. This place isn't spacebattles. There are no bullshit 'second source' requirements here, nor are there rules against certain newspapers/media that some people may not like for whatever reason.

What's wrong with giving a second source to prove the validity of your claim? There are far too many webpages that tell fabricated stories.

Provided a second source is not an unreasonable request at all.

Not when the only criticism of the primary source is that it's biased. You must show a record of outright fraud before you can dismiss the factual data (as opposed to interpretive bits) of a news article.

I'm not suggesting the you can dismiss it even if a second source cannot be found but that certainly does question the reliability of the story. My point is simply this there is nothing wrong with asking for a second source.

[Vympel]

I'm not suggesting the you can dismiss it even if a second source cannot be found but that certainly does question the reliability of the story. My point is simply this there is nothing wrong with asking for a second source.

I'm not being 'sensitive' about it, I just find the whole thing ridiculous. Are you saying that Perle did not say this and the story is BS because other media didn't cover the speech of a relatively obscure neocon spokesman? Why does the lack of a second source make such a thing unreliable? It's a quite ordinary story.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'm not suggesting the you can dismiss it even if a second source cannot be found but that certainly does question the reliability of the story. My point is simply this there is nothing wrong with asking for a second source.

I'm not being 'sensitive' about it, I just find the whole thing ridiculous. Are you saying that Perle did not say this and the story is BS because other media didn't cover the speech of a relatively obscure neocon spokesman? Why does the lack of a second source make such a thing unreliable? It's a quite ordinary story.

Actually I believe a second and third source has been provided.

However, if only one source could be found it would IMO damage the reliability of the story.

It's ordinary for a supporter of the war to come out and say "Yeah, we're breaking the law!!!" ?

[Hamel]

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal
Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House

Come back when that changes. Till then its nothing but some guys personal opinion.

You're either beyond stupid or truly out of the loop.

1) Perle is a key figure in the administration. Head of the Defense Policy Board of the Pentagon. He, along with other scumbag neocons, influenced and pushed the administration into the war.

2) Just because a white house official didn't say it, doesn't mean it holds no water.

3) His opinion was verified as fact before the war even started.

The UN is worthless in this case.

Okay. Next time you want to break international law, admit it up front and spare us the bullshit!

[Axis Kast]

Why?

While the United States suffered great criticism for being unable to justify the war properly, we would have forgone the benefit of popular support at all by rejecting the United Nations altogether. An outright admission by George W. Bush that the War in Iraq would be a strictly private, American affair completely free of the possibility of outside censure or influence would have been just as disastrous as failed justification. At least the later option lets us hang onto those who can see justification through international law.

[The Kernel]

Why?

While the United States suffered great criticism for being unable to justify the war properly, we would have forgone the benefit of popular support at all by rejecting the United Nations altogether. An outright admission by George W. Bush that the War in Iraq would be a strictly private, American affair completely free of the possibility of outside censure or influence would have been just as disastrous as failed justification. At least the later option lets us hang onto those who can see justification through international law.

So it is better to lie to both the international community AND the United States voters? Spare me the bullshit. I don't give a flying fuck what was the better PR move for the Bush administration, the simple fact is that they should have been upfront and truthful about their intentions in Iraq. Are you really trying to justify lying to the people who elected them?

[Axis Kast]

So it is better to lie to both the international community AND the United States voters? Spare me the bullshit. I don't give a flying fuck what was the better PR move for the Bush administration, the simple fact is that they should have been upfront and truthful about their intentions in Iraq. Are you really trying to justify lying to the people who elected them?

Who said anything about lying? The White House and CIA might have issued false reports on the topic of disarmament, but the legality of intervention in Iraq on behalf of the United Nations – under the framework set out by its Security Council – was always up for interpretation. There was plenty of room to foot opinion, which is essentially what the United States attempted to do.

Those who assert that Bush would have been better off acknowledging his plan to act unilaterally and without foreign input from the start underestimate the immediate legitimacy that would have bestowed upon the administration’s critics. Washington would have faced a firestorm of criticism and given explicit and undeniable life to charges of unilateral self-service. Better to fail in attempts at justification, leaving one’s supporters the shreds of legal justification, than to throw in the towel in the first place on the fears that your argument won’t be accepted anyway.

Furthermore, the White House was “up front and truthful about [its] intentions in Iraq”. The legality of action has nothing to do with objectives on the ground. I also point out to you that the Bush administration at first seemed to think international support assured. That rather discredits any argument that he felt himself from the start to be hawking an insupportable and unacceptable program.