None of that shows that he was against the removal of Saddam in 2003 with US forces. Powell says SPECIFICALLY in the Barbara Walters show in 2005 that he supported the Presidents decision to remove SADDAM. To qoute Powell, "when the President said it was not tolerable for Saddam to remain in violation of these UN resolutions, I am right there with him on the use of force!"
Powell was the one who got the Bush administration to go back to the United Nations for resolution 1441 that was not technically needed to authorize the invasion. He disputed the contention of others that resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of military force.
Another famous qoute by Powell in 2002:
"It is not incumbent on the United States to prove that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction, it is incumbant on Iraq to prove that they don't."
Powell has also been against any form of pre-mature withdrawal. He stated in the Barbara Walters interview in 2005 that the United States needed to stay the course in Iraq and develop the countries government, military forces and economy.
He never advocated a pre-mature withdrawal, but in any event, history has shown any opponents of the Surge to have been flat out wrong about the impact it would have on the situation in the country.
The invasion of Iraq was spearheaded by heavy armor units that have not been used in Afghanistan to date. You can't be claiming the President was not focused on Afghanistan because a tank division that would be unlikely to be sent to Afghanistan was used to invade Iraq.
The US used a total of 11 brigades to invade Iraq and a two brigades on the ground in Afghanistan at the time.
But the USA still had a total of 30 Active Army and Marine brigades back in the USA, Germany, Japan, and South Korea.
In addition, there were 38 National Guard Combat Brigades that were not being used at all back in the United States.
So the idea that the President underresourced Afghanistan to invade Iraq in 2003 is flat out FALSE!
Saddam failed to verifiably account for a long list of WMD items while the inspectors were in country. It was also found out after the war that he hid production related WMD facilities that were in violation of multiple UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.
At no time in 2003 was Saddam EVER in compliance with ANY of the 17 UN Security Council resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations.
The COLOSSAL MISTAKE would have been to leave Saddam in power. But please, if you have logical explanation that leaving someone, with Saddam's behavior and history, in power in Iraq would be best for the security of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the persian gulf region, and the world, lets here it. I don't see too many arguments these days defending Saddam as a source of peace and stability for the Persian Gulf.
INSPECTORS NEVER GAVE IRAQ A CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH! THERE WERE NO INSPECTORS EVEN ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ IN 1999!
This is basic factual history.
Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 precisely because Iraq was NOT complying with requirements of the 1991 Gulf War ceacefire.
1. The fact that no WMD weapons were found in Iraq after Saddam was removed does not prove that were NONE in the country before the US invaded.
2. It does not change the fact that WMD production related facilities that were in violation of the UN resolutions were found in the country after Saddam was removed!
3. Saddam remained in violation of 17 UN security council resolutions from 1999 until the US invaded and removed Saddam.
4.Most importantly, the key means of containment, Sanctions and the Weapons embargo, had fallen apart by 2002. Its impossible to contain Saddam without them. Every day that would go by without effective sanctions and weapons embargo regime would allow Saddam to rebuild both his conventional and unconventional military forces. The inability to effectively contain Saddam meant that the only option left was regime change.
5. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton supported the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam in 2003!
I also do not recall Biden in March 2003 saying that Bush had violated his own resolution on Iraq. There was nothing dissenting from Biden at all in March 2003.
No one ever said that Saddam had a nuclear weapon! The whole point of containing Saddam was to prevent from rebuilding his military or obtaining new WMD or even worse a nuclear weapon! Its about PREVENTION and not waiting for a leader to get such weapons that could be used against any invasion force.
But again, without containment which involves an effective Sanctions and Weapons embargo regime, containment cannot work. The only other option besides containment was regime change.
If that were clearly the case, the UN inspectors would not have been so extensively involved in Iraq, year after year AFTER 1991. In 2003, Saddam had still failed to account for thousands of stocks of WMD. IT IS A THEORY, NOT A PROVEN FACT, THAT SOME OF THOSE STOCKS WERE DESTROYED WITHOUT VERIFICATION IN 1991.
If this had any truth to it at all, the United States would have NEVER gone to WAR with Iraq in 1991, bombed Iraq year after year, or attempt to put Iraq under the most extensive sanctions and weapons embargo regime in history!
Can you name another country on the planet in 2003 that was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations?
Lets stop going over stuff we have already been going over for 2 years and ask ourselves a simple question.
Did Bush let Iraq prove they had no WMD?
No, he discounted the entire inspections process, made a show out of it, and was set on going to war regardless of the facts.
Bush obviously did not look at the evidence that showed that all the WMD were gone.
How could Iraq be deemed in violation of WMD resolutions when they were falsely being accused of having them?
And the incontrovertible and proven fact is that there were no WMD.
You are wrong, I and many others are right, and there really is nothing more to discuss here.
The troop level stuff, the inactive guard brigades crap, etc all just shows how woefully uninformed you are. That never changes, I am going to stop trying to change that.
Life is too short to keep discussing things with you in circles, the same things multiple times.