Talk:Rationale for the Iraq War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Back to the topic at hand?

Hi folks, I don't see how all this talk of tacit consensus is useful. The reality is (despite whatever claims were made in the past) we don't have a consensus in favour of removing all the criticisms from this article. It seems to me that at least four editors (Silly Rabbit, Viriditas, FCYTravis and I) disagree with the proposal. If we wait a few days, I reckon that figure will rise as more editors happen by.

I'm not sure where this idea of a "permanent lack of consensus" came from. It seems to me that there's been no real discussion of the reasons for or against deleting the criticisms. Ryder and Raggz, if you still want to go ahead with your proposal, forget about "tacit consensus" and try to convince the rest of us that this article would be better without the criticisms.

The Removal of all Criticisms, and Criticisms section above contain both well formed argument and questions for those that do not offer consensus, yet of the 4 people you claim disagree with the proposal, none has engaged. If nobody disagrees with the proposal enough to engage in discussion of it... then I think the edit will happen. (regardless of statements of "no consensus") The response has been, instead of discussion, accusations of Sock/Meat puppetry, and attacks on the idea of tacit concensus. If the opposition to the change will get serious and enter a reasoned discussion, then we would be on our way. If you would please return to the sections I refer to and respond to them, that'd be great. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, you think this article should only reflect the views of people who supported the invasion. This looks to me like a fairly obvious WP:NPOV violation but I'm open to reasoned arguments. You'll have to come up with a more compelling case than "this is not a debating society" though. The comparisons with the OJ Simpson and global warming articles are not really appropriate because neither of those articles advances a particular point of view. In this case, you want to have an entire article about a current political controversy that only gives voice to one side of the argument.

Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think you have a correct understanding. I think it should contain what is says it contains: the Rationale for the Iraq War. As currently appears in the article, there are four other pages in the Wiki that have treatments on the criticisms. How many pages have to support the same critical notions over and over again? How about we simply say "Cricisms to the Rationale for the Iraq War can be found at ...." and provide the references to those four other pages? Ryder Spearmann (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Does Global Warming devote half of the space to why Global Warming does not exist and half to the other argument? Does this article violate NPOV because it is directed to it's topic? I do not believe that encyclopedia articles are about people's "views". Try reading An Inconvenient Truth. It maintains a 7:1 ratio in the Lead between the topic and criticisms of the topic. I believe this article is a good model for this one. An Inconvenient Truth focuses upon the topic and would be a much worse article if they took our approach of debating global warming 50-50, and ignored the actual topic. An Inconvenient Truth is a good model of how to cover a topic and to include criticisms, a 7:1 ratio. Raggz (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well one thing is for sure, I would not expect ANY anti global warming on a page titled "The case for Global Warming". Ryder Spearmann (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the lead section and in the section titled "Social and political debate". —Viriditas | Talk 14:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. Do we think that Global warming gets the balance about right? Raggz (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Original Research deletions

"The rationale for the Iraq War (i.e., the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent hostilities) has been a contentious issue since the Bush administration began actively pressing for military intervention in Iraq in late 2001." This is original research. The rationale for the Iraq war does not seem a "contentious issue". There is a related controversy: The VALIDITY of the rationale. What the rationale actually was is best stated by the Iraq resolution. Who argues that it says what it says? No one can or is arguing against the stated rationale. Raggz (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Establishing long term Middle East military presence

U.S. General Jay Garner, who was in charge of planning and administering post-war reconstruction in Iraq, compared the U.S. occupation of Iraq to the Philippine model in a 2004 interview in National Journal: "Look back on the Philippines around the turn of the 20th century: they were a coaling station for the navy, and that allowed us to keep a great presence in the Pacific. That's what Iraq is for the next few decades: our coaling station that gives us great presence in the Middle East" , "One of the most important things we can do right now is start getting basing rights with (the Iraqi authorities)", "I hope they're there a long time.... And I think we'll have basing rights in the north and basing rights in the south... we'd want to keep at least a brigade", Garner added

Also, the House report accompanying the emergency spending legislation said the money was "of a magnitude normally associated with permanent bases".

The text above was deleted as original research. We cannot have a section about a hypothetical reason never supported by a single reliable source. U.S. General Jay Garner does not say that military bases had anything to do with the Rationale. Please do not revert without a reliable source for the hypothesis. Raggz (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Libyan disarmament

Also included in the list of postwar justifications is Libya's agreement to abandon its WMD programs in December of 2003. Those who argue that this action was directly inspired by the invasion of Iraq point to a phone call Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi says he had with Libya's leader, Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi in April of 2003, in which he quotes Gadaffi as saying "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid." Negotiations between Libya and the United States and Britain on disarmament began almost immediately thereafter.

On the other hand, it is argued by opponents of military intervention in Iraq that the Libyan case shows that traditional "carrot-and-stick" diplomacy can be successful in reducing the risk posed by "rogue states" without the need for invasion. For example, Flynt Leverett (former senior director for Middle Eastern Affairs at the United States National Security Council) and Martin S. Indyk (former Clinton administration official) argue that the agreement was instead a result of good-faith negotiations on a range of political, military and economic issues, intended to persuade Libya to move closer to the West. Libya had in principle agreed to surrender its programs in 1999, long before the Iraq War.

The above text was deleted as OR because it does not have a single reliable source that supports the hypothesis that the Rationale involved Libya. Raggz (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"===Bringing democracy to the Middle East=== One of the rationales that the Bush Administration employed periodically during the runup to the Iraq war is that deposing Saddam Hussein and installing a democratic government in Iraq would promote democracy in other Middle Eastern countries. Vice President Dick Cheney stated in an August 2002 speech to the annual Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, "When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace.""

The text above was deleted because there is no reliable source that this was a rationale. Raggz (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations do not support the article's text

*^ Smith, Jeffrey R. "Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted". The Washington Post, April 6, 2007. Retrieved on May 9, 2007.

This article does not mention any shift by the administration.

*^ Sandalow, Mark. "NEWS ANALYSIS: Record shows Bush shifting on Iraq war". The San Francisco Chronicle, September 29, 2004. Retrieved on May 17, 2007.

This article discusses shifting - and how Bush did not shift. It is an error by Synthesis to use this cite for the text. Raggz (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the article specifically says: "Yet, heading into the first presidential debate Thursday, which will focus on foreign affairs, there is much in the public record to suggest that Bush's words on Iraq have evolved -- or, in the parlance his campaign often uses to describe Kerry, flip-flopped." I am restoring the deleted text, since the rationale for removing it is bogus. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please reread the citations language (above) and the text of the article (below). Does the citation discuss "Hussein government's human rights record and promoting democracy in Iraq"? I suggest not. Raggz (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Shortly after the invasion, the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies largely discredited evidence related to Iraqi weapons and, as well as links to Al Qaeda, and at this point the Bush and Blair Administrations began to shift to secondary rationales for the war, such as the Hussein government's human rights record and promoting democracy in Iraq.[6][7]"

Revert and sandbox

I have reverted Raggz's recent run of edits, and moved his last version to a sandbox here in Raggz's userspace. Raggz, I know that some of the edits you made were OR deletions, and as such warrant some serious conversation. However, the overarching purpose of the edits was also to restructure the article in a fundamental way which I do not agree with. I have preserved the last version in userspace so that you can continue to work on that version without being disruptive here. When you have finished, perhaps you can summarize the revision succinctly here so that other editors can be included in the process. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with your revert. What is a "sandbox"?

The idea is to restructure the article so that the opposition to this topic is addressed in ONE section, so that the Reader may understand the topic. I would like to move all of the material attacking the Rationale for the Iraq war to a section where the Reader may get as much of this as may be desired.

Please read global warming and there admire how they have managed to collaborate, so that the Reader is not bogged down in arguments about why global warming could not exist. We have inverted their approach with a 7:1 focus on why the invasion's rationale was bogus. They have a 7:1 ratio on what global warming is about, with a bit of discussion (for context) on the opposition.

Please read An inconvenient truth. It does not suggest that Al Gore is a war criminal. It does not offer a forum for those who oppose global warming. It focuses on the topic.

I suggest that almost all of the "opposition" is inappropriate for this article. It could be moved to an appropriate topic, Why the Iraq war rationale is bogus. The Reader has a right top expect that the topic will be addressed and that the necessary links and limited contextual contextual contrasting views will be offered IF they want this. I strongly support ensuring that the Reader can click on links to the opposing arguments. I strongly oppose denying them their right to learn about the topic they have selected.

After reading the articles referenced above, does anyone believe that a 7:1 ratio of discussion against these topics would have improved them? Please read OJ Simpson. Millions of people believe that he is guilty of murder. Should this article debate this question? Raggz (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you chose a bad article structure. By singling out certain topics as those limited to "critics", you structured the article in a manner reflecting a definite POV. Not only that, but it was based on a false distinction: for instance, it isn't just the critics who think that WMD were part of the rationale for the war, so why did you put that in the "Critics" section? I could make similar objections for each section in turn. Silly rabbit (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW: I don't see what An Inconvenient Truth nor O.J. Simpson have to do with the current article. I can't see any obvious parallels. This article is on a much more complex issue, and so has many more details than either of these examples. Also, An Inconvenient Truth has some serious stylistic problems of its own, and is a bad model for any article in my opinion. Silly rabbit (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You are a better writer and editor than I am, Silly rabbit. I trust you, (once you understand what I may be thought to be raving about) to use sound editorial judgement. Would you rather restructure this article of have me continue my best efforts?

The articles I offer share two important similarities. (1) They handle controversial topics WITHOUT becoming a debate blog and (2) the Reader can use these articles. Which article is your favorite for these criteria? I have no doubt that you can find better ones. The point is to look at other articles that present their controversial topic effectively without losing the contextual background of objections. This article is a MUCH simpler topic. It is ONLY about the rationale for the Iraq war. It is not about the merits of the rationale. There are MANY articles to edit on that topic, but this is simple and easy (if we agree to make it so). Raggz (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Study: False statements preceded war

• A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks. The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses." - Associated Press
  • 935 false statements made in a two-year period. "Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both."
  • According to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism, "The Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

—Viriditas | Talk 04:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it sounds bad, but I notice that the big point this study constantly hints at but consistently strains to avoid directly addressing is whether they knew these statements to be false when they made them. So what if they repeatedly stated their stance? How many times have we heard the word "Change" during this election season already? Using the power of repetition to back up a point makes them no different than any other politicians. If they honestly believed it and it was later proven false, it does not make their intent malicious simply by retrospect as Lewis and Smith would imply. "Misinformation" suggests the malicious spreading of information which is known to be false, and there is no proof that this is the case here. As such, this study provides nothing more than a trivial statistic. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the intel was bad. No one disputes this. The claim for intentional misrepresentation is unfair - unless supported. Raggz (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt the intel was accurate, there is no smoking gun. Which leaves us the question: "what happened to the numerous caveats in the NIE and warnings by other intelligence agencies around the world that the Bush administration made entirely different statements, i.e. we have evidence and know where the WMD's are?" Also, the impossibility of having an independent investigation into these discrepancies is troubling.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the report. How many examples do you require? "In a speech on August 26, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney flatly asserted that "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet later wrote that Cheney's statement "went well beyond what our own analysis could support." Tenet was not alone within the CIA. As one of his top deputies later told journalist Ron Suskind: "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from? Does he have a source of information that we don't know about?'" —Viriditas | Talk 10:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The source calls it an 'orchestrated' campaign. Wikipedia wants reliable sources, so there should be no problem with this as long as it is cited and attributed. Wikipedia doesn't pass the judgement, the source does. So again, I think this should be included and the source mentioned. --68.72.38.42 (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote from an article about this:

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

This further justifies the argument about the intentions of the source, whether it is correct or not. --68.72.38.42 (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There was, as I see it, no consensus to remove this section. (Please go and read WP:CONSENSUS to find out what this means.) Furthermore, it is not Wikipedia policy to delete material which does not satisfy NPOV against consensus. See WP:NPOV/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. I don't know whether the material belongs in the article or not, but I find the cited reason for removal without discussion, to be highly suspect, as well as posting a warning to User:Viriditas' talk page instead discussing the matter here. My suspicions would be allayed if User:Raggz would engage in a good faith effort to balance the material either by editing it, or by providing suggestions here. Since he/she has not done so, I have reverted for the reason that the edit summary indicated an incorrect application of policy. Silly rabbit (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia, is to tell the truth. This article needs a lot of trimming. Since we now know that the administration made 935 false statements, including 235 by Bush and 244 by Powell to promote the war, we can throw out all of them as fabrications. From a historical context they can be summarized in one or two sentences in a history section. Taking out all the falsehood, what is left? Oil? What we do know is that the administration was determined to find a way to justify attacking Iraq, and that WMD was used as a "slam dunk" method to get the US into the war, probably just to get Saddam's head, as Bush probably got into his head that the "job hadn't been finished" by his father. He did not get that idea from Bush Sr. (who opposed attacking Iraq, and has declined to comment on his son's abysmal performance while W. is still in office), but more likely from peer pressure. As to 5 military bases bigger than anywhere else, it is more likely those came as a consequence, not as a rationale (now that we are here what can we do - well we could build some military bases). In 2005 the US had 106 bases in Iraq,[1] but only 14 were referred to as enduring. As to the rationale for the Iraq War, well what is left is cheap oil and Saddam's head. There are some alternate rationales indicated along these lines that can be kept. The rest, an enumeration of the 935 false statements, is unnecessary. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you've twice ignored the notices I have issued and reposted this, I will say this here to make sure it is not missed for a third time: Good-faith efforts to improve the article are encouraged, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox for spreading personal opinions. The changes that you are proposing will not take place for a very simple reason: The purpose of this article, as outlined by the title, is to describe in a historical context the rationale which was used to go to war in Iraq. There already exists three other articles devoted to outlining the criticism of it, need we make this one into a fourth? This study finds little more than that some of the rationale were built on statements which would later prove false (Notice the report calls them false statements and not lies: Your statement that the rationale were, quote, "fabrications," is not supported by this study), and that during the months leading up to the war these rationale were argued by members of the administration several hundred times (Hence, orchestrated). The interpretation that many seem to be drawing from this study is that the rationale were known to be false at the time they were offered, turning the administration's actions into the deliberate and malicious spreading of misinformation. This is not espoused in the study, but even if it were, it would change nothing. Again, the purpose of this article is historical, not political: it is meant to explain to the reader what led the U.S. and others to war. The publishing of what is essentially a word-count study does not justify the wholesale removal of the historical content in the article in favor of yet more criticism. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 09:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The study has about as much airing in the article now as I think it deserves. I heartily agree with S0CO's sentiment that "The publishing of what is essentially a word-count study does not justify the wholesale removal of the historical content in the article in favor of yet more criticism." Silly rabbit (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In the sense that most people understand the word rationale, which is "Fundamental reasons; the basis", most of the article needs to go. If you wish to keep it you need to change the title to "Rationalization for the Iraq War", as rationalization means "to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes." I would prefer to keep the focus on the real reasons as outlined above. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but as you can see the consensus here is against your proposal. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you determine a "consensus" in 2 hours with zero comments? Way too premature. First wait for someone to even make a formal proposal, then come back in 5 days to see if any consensus has been achieved. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to your repeated idea that "most of the article needs to go" with the exception of vague notions about Bush wanting "oil and Saddam's head". There is consensus against that, as you can see. Wikipedia is not supposed to push a point a view. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the question is, is the article about rationale or about rationalization? They are not the same. If it is about rationale most of it needs to go. If it is about rationalization, the title needs to be changed. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

1. 1. I think the article should be titled "the stated justifications for the Iraq war" if it is to be retitled at all, which I personally care little about.
2. 2 Not sure the point you're arguing here, 199.125.109.77, but if you expect to be taken seriously regarding the content of the article, you might want to back off the Democratic Underground style rhetoric. Nothing personal,it just invites ridicule and such accusations are just this side of the we went to war "cuz he tried to kill my daddy" talk. (which only causes one to wonder if Bush Sr. was studly enough to father 3/4 of congress as well!) Just my 2 cents.
3. 3. As for the study in question, maybe it would be less questionable for POV if it also included the statements made by Democratic politicians in the leadup to the war as well, many of which can be found here:

[2] and if the study's authors looked hard enough, would probably find they exceed 935.

1. 4. Anyone declaring the administration knew anything but what they stated should be surprised at this fact: Not one single report by any intelligence agency in the world was available to policymakers, which judged in its conclusions that Saddam had disarmed and had no WMD. Not one. I'm sorry, but to assume in hindsight that policymakers were wrong to take the judgements and stated conclusions of the NIE at face value, and instead latch onto a single detraction at the bottom of a page in the middle of it, is preposterous as well as dangerous as a precedent for future leaders to follow. Batvette (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Press conference was scripted

• Moved from User_talk:Silly rabbit.

This is important because it shows that from the beginning the press was kept from asking questions about the war. You can watch the video of the press conference at President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to Rationale for the Iraq war

I'm not disagreeing that there is a point to be made here. The problem is that "we" aren't allowed to make it. Wikipedia policies do not permit the article to "build a case." The case must already exist, and points must already have been made elsewhere. There must be dozens of Iraq war critics who have observed that the press was not permitted to ask any questions, that the event was scripted, etc. Is there a notable critic who has made these observations? Silly rabbit (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For more information, you can see WP:OR regarding one of the fundamental policies, that of no original research, and WP:NPOV that Wikipedia must attempt to maintain a neutral point of view. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The "point" was made by Bill Moyers. Read the references. I didn't want to use his diatribe, although you forced the point. To me it is sufficient to point out that the press laughed about the press conference being scripted, and to point out that "scripted" means "no questions". The video makes the point better than the transcript. Dozens? No only one is needed, although if the connection is not obvious then that one needs to be attributed. In this case it is obvious that the press wasn't allowed to ask any questions, even though about 200 million Americans failed to notice at the time. What you might want to do is expand on this by tracking down the criticism of the Moyers report, particularly by CBS. I wasn't able to quickly find it. See:[3] Just out of curiosity I wonder if the same person who was trying to ask the question was the same person who on April 13, 2004 asked "In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?"[4] Bush's answer was "I wish you would have given me this written, question, ahead of time, so I could plan for it." (punctuation added) 199.125.109.77 (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Operation Iraqi Liberation

Go find your own references. Do you like this one from a toy company any better? http://www.themotorpool.net/US-M109-Self-Propelled-Howitzer-p/uni80021h.htm 199.125.109.77 (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not my job to find reliable sources for your content. The burden of evidence lies on the contributor. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You like the White House better? http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030324-4.html and if you don't like that one there are 29,000 more to choose from http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Operation+Iraqi+Liberation%22

In the spirit of collaboration it is much better to do a reference improvement, or edit the text. Edits which add content should not be reverted. Another easy tack is to look up the article 2003 invasion of Iraq, and use the reference used there, but wait, that article uses the above White House reference. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to be snide: the White House source would be perfectly adequate. But on the contrary, that policy says that if something cannot be properly sourced, then it must be removed. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A journalist recently said it was "a young lieutenant" who noticed the acronym. Is there any more information about this? 199.125.109.77 (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Imminent threat

That's what this war was sold on. Why doesn't it appear? Blah42 02:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A good point, but members of the administration deny using this exact phrase. Indeed, they said "deep and gathering threat," "sobering threat," etc., while leaving "imminent threat" to their allied news commentators. Debating the precise language used is a frustrating exercise, but certainly Saddam Hussein's Iraq was portrayed as a threat to the United States, which was absurd. Iraq was no more a threat than Poland. In truth, George W. Bush's United States was a threat to Iraq, as confirmed by subsequent events. Paul 01:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This, of course, is an oversimplification. Suggesting that a single element was the selling point of the decision to use military force simply does not hold water. Included were reasons of failing to meet the terms agreed on for the cease fire of the first conflict (which, naturally, means resumption of hostilities). For just one example.Ryder Spearmann (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall the Bush administration ever claiming Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States, or that there was EVER any fear Saddam Hussein would attack us here. The fact is Saddam Hussein and his desire for regional conquest WERE a threat to the NATIONAL SECURITY of America, which means the Persian Gulf petroleum exports we depend upon. I'm sorry if stopping people from making claims that were never stated is a "frustrating exercise" for some people, but using misleading language to complain people were misled is absurdity in itself. Furthermore the government did not control the press or tell them to embellish their statements. Batvette (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Regional conquest in 2003? They could barely leave Baghdad before coming under the scope of the northern and southern no fly-zones, how was he meant to carry out regional conquest? Not to mention that the region was laregly opposed to this action - almost all neighbouring countries were vocal in their protests.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.135.28.86 (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup taskforce tag

Attention cleanup taskforce: you put a talk page tag on top of the article. Listing Port (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Poland Said Oil Was Its Rationale for Iraq War

I'm surprised that Poland's rationale for war is completely omitted from this article. This needs to be added to the article.

Poland, which has sent troops to support the US-led forces in Iraq, has acknowledged its "ultimate objective" is to acquire supplies of Iraqi oil.

The Polish Foreign Minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, said his country had never disguised the fact that it sought direct access to the oilfields.

He was speaking as a group of Polish firms signed a deal with a subsidiary of US Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton.

The US firm, Kellogg, Brown and Root, has already won million-dollar contracts to carry out reconstruction work in Iraq.

"We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities," Mr Cimoszewicz told the Polish PAP news agency.

Access to the oilfields "is our ultimate objective," he added.

Can someone add this information into the article? I've provided a cite to a reliable source below. Thanks!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3043330.stm 67.184.14.87 (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Raggz (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The primary rationalization for the Iraq War

The primary rationalization for the Iraq War was best articulated by a joint resolution of the US Congress known as the Iraq Resolution.

The US stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world".[1] Additional reasons have been suggested: "to change the Middle East so as to deny support for militant Islam by pressuring or transforming the nations and transnational systems that support it."[2] For the invasion of Iraq the rationale was "the United States relied on the authority of UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687 to use all necessary means to compell Iraq to comply with its international obligations".[3]

Paragraph 2 (above) does not summarize the Iraq Resolution completely (democracy) or well, and it either needs to do this or be deleted. 660 and 678 were central, but so was 1441 and others according to the US Department of State.

How might we best make paragrapgh 2 better? Raggz (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't agree that primary rationalization for the Iraq War is best articulated by this resolution. The main justification for the war was WMDs. The Bush administration hammered this over and over again. The other reasons were more of afterthought. This paragraph fails to give the same emphasis on WMDs that the Bush administration did at the time. It gives the impression that the other justifications were given equal billing and they weren't. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That is perhaps the silliest argument ever, "forget what the sole document we have to refer to that congress passed as law says in black and white, and listen to what I remember the MEDIA pounded into my head. When you say "the bush administration hammered..." that is an interesting passage. Where do I find the White Houses' TV channel? Their newspaper? Their radio broadcast? You want George Bush laying out the reasons for the war in HIS words that he could control the emphasis on, please read the transcript for the UN address to the general assembly of september 2002. You'll see humanitarian reasons and democracy and terrorism were given top billing, and that speech was at a time when it mattered, when you could call your congressman and urge him to vote yes or no on the JR. After October 10 2002 the American public had no say in the war taking place or not and saying anyone was misled is misleading in itself. Batvette (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I don't even think the name of this article is accurate. The word 'rationale' implies the reason for the war. I'm not sure if anyone knows for certain what the real reason for the war. These are just public justifications, none of which may be the real reason for the war was. I suggest renaming the article to Justifications for the Iraq War. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no single "real" reason, there are about a dozen legitimate ones, you'd think you could find one that is good enough to get behind. For me it was Saddam's reaction to us declaring war on terrorism- he increased the bounties for terrorists attacking our biggest ally in the region. Bomb his ass for that alone. The MAIN reason as it applies to WMD and Saddam's failure to comply with UN resolutions, was that Saddam's continued intention for regional conquest and aggression toward his neighbors (who we were bound by agreement to protect) placed our national security in jeapordy because we depend on Persian Gulf oil exports for nearly every facet of our economy. This is also why the war was legal under UN charter, we were acting as agents providing security for Kuwait and KSA and the UN could not guarantee Saddam's submission. Batvette (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You are misguided, there is no valid reason available for violating the UN Charter. See war of aggression. There are however myriad of changing excuses presented to disguise that fact. Ignoring the PR campaigns stressing the link with Al Qaeda and those horrendous WMD (mushroomcloud anybody?) reeks like rewriting history.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, YOU again... and wrong again. We were within the charter, TO WIT:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The fact that the Council was still issuing Chapter VII resolutions regarding the situation between Iraq and Kuwait - is absolute proof that the Security Council had not been able to "maintain or restore international peace and security" in the situation regarding Iraq and Kuwait. The US was authorized to use force under UNSCR 678 and under Article 51, Chapter VII.

UNSCR 678..."Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area..."

Iraq never complied fully with the cease fire, so we, acting as agents defending Kuwait, resume hostilities to provide for the peace and security of Kuwait- self defense- that the UN in screwing around for 12 years STILL could not. Got that? I know it's hard to stay firm on your opinions when the complications of facts interfere, but that is life... as for "PR campaigns" I dont get my facts from spun spin being spun by a spinner, the joint resolution will be just fine. It never claimed any link, it says THIS

and to end its support for international terrorism

and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations

Whereas members of al Qaida... ...are known to be in Iraq

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations

the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so

the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups

to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations,

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations

Now I see a whole lot of stuff about terrorism that Saddam WAS GUILTY of. [5] but I don't see that thing you're talking about, Sparky.Batvette (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ciould you clarify the imminent invasion by Iraq/threat/attack (take your pick) to justify invoking "self-defence?" And no, links with Al-Qaeda have also been disproven. Again, no self-defence and no UN approval: ipso facto or ergo illegal war.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Imminent" is a word not found anywhere in the joint resolution, and no links with Al Qaeda are claimed within. We need not prove that Saddam was about to reinvade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, his previous actions made his potential and intent clear. The cease fire was enacted on the conditions stated therein and he did not comply with them. It was up to Saddam to prove he had turned over a new leaf, and not upon to us to prove he would continue as he always had.This is not a new war to be illegal or not but a resumption of hostilities suspended by a cease fire agreement that was violated. The 12 years between were not peaceful, he threatened twice to reinvade Kuwait and fired on planes patrolling the no fly zone thousands of times, and despite the cease fire's demanding he stop, continuously and conspicuously financed acts of international terrorism. Here you are saying "look, we proved the sky is NOT purple with pink polka dots", well good for you, but the joint resolution claimed it was blue. The body of Congress, your elected representation in the nation's capital, voted for the actions which did take place. (their pipeline of intelligence, BY LAW, i.e; the Intelligence Reform Act of 1980, was not through the White House!) The President fulfilled the requirements of the intent and letter of the joint resolution. You and those with your beliefs disagree with it and have spent 6 years trying to enforce the idea that you were right but this was presented as a preemptive measure, passed into law as such and if anything is required to be proven it should be that your fantasy it was not necessary be revealed to all of us on the crystal ball you've been hiding. I don't think my childhood polio vaccination was a mistake, was yours? Prove to us now, 6 years later, that once sanctions were relaxed and the no fly zone was eliminated, (don't EVEN claim the status quo, which resulted in 9/11, was tenable!) that regional peace and security as well as Iraq's domestic tranquility and future, would be better than history's course. You can't, you're complaining for the infantile motivation that you think you were right but you didn't get your way. Polls show a majority of Americans now feel the war was a mistake, and I hear repeatedly that this news should cause me to change my recollection of the facts and recant my support for the policy. I needn't point out why that makes the poll a joke. Batvette (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

7.3 Divine Inspiration

In regard to this section, it should be re-titled as 7.3 Religion Addiction, with a reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction That Mr. Bush is a former alcoholic and drunk driver is well known. This incident makes clear his religion addiction. I note other articles about this below http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/08/did-bush-justify-the-iraq-inva.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush http://www.thespec.com/article/572824 also this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gog_and_Magog#Gog_and_Magog_and_President_George_W._Bush omits to make clear WHICH Biblical prophecy is being fulfilled and how. There needs to be more explanation. The only thing that I can assume is that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is being used. Thanks! Peter Rumjal --rumjal 12:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

Should this story about Tony Blair be mentioned? It is in reference to the 1998 bombing of Iraq but shows how his Christian faith did have an impact on his actions.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Australia

I removed as part of the oil section but given the touchiness of the article I thought I would provide a longer explanation. It says

“In July 2007, then Australian Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson stated that oil was a major factor in the government's decision to keep troops in Iraq:

"Obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq, but the entire region, is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world. And Australians and all of us need to think well what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq...One of the other priorities for us as we go forward into the future is energy security. It's not only for Australia. I think we derive about 20 per cent of our own oil reserves from the Middle East. But there are many countries, including developing countries, which rely substantially on energy supplies from the Middle East...For those reasons in particular, all of those reasons, one of which is energy security, it's extremely important that Australia take the view that it's in our interests, our security interests, to make sure that we leave the Middle East, and leave Iraq in particular, in a position of sustainable security."http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1970312.htm Australia must protect oil supply: Howard]

While this is interesting info about the occupation it is of no relevance to the initial American invasion. Also the military situation was different in 2003 then 2007 (state on state war vs. possible failed state) which further distances this situation from the invasion. Protecting oil supply in a possible failed state (while allied with their gov't) is very different from invading a nation for oil. If someone wishes to move this paragraph, to another more relevant article or even section, they can feel free.-- jfry3 (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

The fact that a small number of people in the US and UK governments, and their supporters in other givernment does not change the fact that: -The UN secretary general and many other international lawyers stated that the war was illegal, and this undermines the rastionale for war. -Global public opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to war.

-Wikipedia should be NPOV, and not give undue weight to fringe beliefs, even if those fringe beliefs are supported by powerful people. We should at least note the fact that the overwhelming majority of people across the world felt the rationale for war was wrong. Global public opinion is no a minor inconvienience that should be ignored.

"Opinion polls showed that the population of nearly all countries opposed a war without UN mandate, and that the view of the United States as a danger to world peace had significantly increased. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan described the war as illegal, saying in a September 2004 interview that it was "not in conformity with the Security Council.""

• • It's not a fringe belief if it's held by the actual state actors in a conflict. 74.198.165.22 (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

These popular beliefs were manufactured to sell the Iraq war to the American public. There certainly is a lot of evidence now that there was a secret rationale for the Iraq War. Vice President Cheney and oil execs decided to take Iraq's oil in spring 2001 (before 9/11). Vice President Cheney held a series of top secret meetings with the representatives of Exxon-Mobil, Conoco, Shell and BP America for what was later called the Energy Task Force. Many of the secrets have leaked since 2001. This should be mentioned in this article.

Cheney Refuses to Release Energy Task Force RecordsProcess Used to Develop the National Energy Policy

Administration Says a 'Zone of Autonomy' Justifies Its Secrecy on Energy Task ForceHigh court hears arguments on Cheney task forceDocument Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force

 kgrr ^talk 11:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Mead's argument

Is there a reason that Walter Russell Mead's argument (for war instead of sanctions) is not on the page? Here is an excerpt from the UN sanctions against Iraq page:

Accepting a large estimate of casualties due to sanctions, Walter Russell Mead argued on behalf of such a war as a better alternative than continuing the sanctions regime, since "Each year of containment is a new Gulf War."

I'll start a new subsection for this, unless there is a more relevant place for it. DougHill (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Israel, zionist project, clean break, neocons

This article is intentionally misleading and should be deleted if it doesn't mention Israel, zionist project and a "clean break" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.184.72 (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Selling oil in Euros

Under the "Oil a factor in the Iraq war" heading I added references to news articles in the early 2000s discussing Saddams efforts to sell oil in Euros, possibly attempting to usurp the USD's status as OPEC reserve currency. I couldn't believe this wasn't mentioned anywhere else, if a better section can be found for it, feel free to move it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.20.165 (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Halabja1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Halabja1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Petroleum

Regarding these deletions I believe they are well-sourced and should be included. Are there any valid reasons that they should not be? EllenCT (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It was removed by an IP. I've restored paragraphs relevant to the article but moved the oil image to a more appropriate section and left out the Cheney section as his comments are related to reconstruction, not rationale. Wayne (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

More oil stuff is being deleted again. EllenCT (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Rationale for the Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080109053513/http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2003/17926.htm to http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2003/17926.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120715091357/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030410-6.html to http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030410-6.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060719045310/http://www.cnn.com:80/2004/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.nuclear/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.nuclear/index.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference Problems

In the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" section, references are not cited according to the proper format. I would fix this, except I simply don't know how. User:Mewok|^(talk) 09:52, October 26 2006

Image Neutrality

An article about the rationale for the Iraq war should not have a map of oil reserves as the main image. Sure its entirely possible that oil was the primary inspiration for the invasion of Iraq. I'm not disputing that possiblity. However, using the map as the main image indicates that the war was in fact fought over access to oil. There is not enough information to establish this with certainty. I don't know how to format Wikipedia pages so someone please help. I am appealing to the neutrality of the article. Colin Powell with an anthrax vial may be more appropriate.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rationale for the Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060213090623/http://www.csmonitor.com:80/specials/inspections/suspicions.html to http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/inspections/suspicions.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Rationale for the Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060513101049/http://www2.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/12/iraq.nuclear/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/12/iraq.nuclear/index.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130517050616/http://nationaljournal.com/members/news/2004/03/0310insider.htm to http://nationaljournal.com/members/news/2004/03/0310insider.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061002024816/http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=claire_short to http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=claire_short
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060614134809/http://boston.com:80/news/packages/iraq/globe_stories/021603_marches.htm to http://www.boston.com/news/packages/iraq/globe_stories/021603_marches.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rationale for the Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0316-02.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/4/mccollam-list.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defenselink.mil/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=494
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2008/05/02/mccain-says-100-years-in-iraq-ad-is-direct-falsification/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rationale for the Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://swap.stanford.edu/20090630211140/http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm to http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070122130520/http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/060622055545.07o4imol.html to http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/060622055545.07o4imol.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070122130520/http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/060622055545.07o4imol.html to http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/060622055545.07o4imol.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)