Tehon
Gold Member
- Jun 19, 2015
- 8,938
- 1,239
- 275
- Thread starter
- #21
NotfooledbyW, why the hesitation bud?1. One is in injecting UN policies and resolutions as conditions that the US federal govt enforces.
My point to Tehon is that UN Resolutions 'injected' into the AUMF as a condition that the US federal govt, through the President, must enforce them 'in order to' actually use military force against Iraq, is not a condition that Bush met.
I agree the Iraq AUMF was not a TRADITIONAL constitutional declaration of war by Congress, because at the time of its passage war was not a necessary outcome of the AUMF Resolution. Iraq had not crossed the threshold. It was understood by all parties that a diplomatic solution was preferred if a diplomatic solution could be resolved in the near future.
The diplomatic solution was certainly in the process to be resolved when Bush used military force in order to unresolve the ongoing diplomatic solution. Therefore Bush did not meet the obligation of the language of the AUMF anyway.
That is not what Senator Clinton voted for so she is not responsible for Bush's contempt of what the AUMF actually said.
Tehon has since taken the absurd and as you point out, the unconstitutional position that Bush was indeed enforcing ALL relevant UNSC resolutions when he ordered the invasion of Iraq. I am certain that Tehon knows full well that the only authoritative representative majority of the UNSC was opposed to the invasion and favored completion of the inspections.
SEN Clinton also spoke in favor of continued inspection prior to the decision by Bush to invade.
Tehon has shown no willingness to admit that Senator Clinton was in line with the language in the AUMF that she gave her consent as well as her support for averting war by supporting the diplomatic resolution of Iraq's alleged WMD threat through UN enforcement of Resolution 1441.
Thanks NotfooledbyW
I only have read DESCRIPTIONS of the process that many sources agree was not followed when Bush pushed to jump the gun, and got other nations to sign
on that also by pushing the threat of WMD as the justification.
It becomes a "faith-based" argument if people believe whatever about the WMD, since both sides claim proof of their beliefs, but the other side rejects that,
and can't be forced to change their beliefs purely by "faith based" arguments back and forth.
Can you please cite EXACT VERBATIM terms (not just the paraphrased interpretations) of
A. the protocol to be followed if the resolutions on inspections were not complied with
B. what EXACT VERBATIM conditions, process or policy did Clinton and Congressional members sign in support of?
Also, is there a written PROTOCOL through the UN on how to proceed at this point,
if aggression was pursued that violated the agreed process. Then what are petitioners supposed to do to redress that violation?
I'd like to know if there is any procedure for collecting restitution or enforcing correction/restoration for damage
done to civilian Iraqi populations and structures due to manipulation/violation of the lawful democratic protocols agreed upon.
Otherwise if nothing exists, I'd like to propose a system of assessing the cost to
taxpayers and citizens in both America and Iraq, and ask both Parties to credit taxpayers for that amount (estimated to be in the tens of trillions) so it can be invested into restoring public access to health care, education and other systems destroyed in both countries
by abuse of govt and media by corporate party politics outside Constitutional checks and balances, limits and separation of powers, and ethical
standards as in Public Law (see 96-303 posted at www.ethics-commission.net).
If corporate, political and govt leaders can spend that much money, charged to taxpayers' expense and public debt, certainly we can demand that much credit through the Federal Reserve also based on banking against the value of debt, and insist that it be paid back to the public to fund services, development and programs we agree to fund with that money.
Would Clinton be on the side of collections and corrections?
or more denial and projection of blame?
Can you please cite EXACT VERBATIM terms (not just the paraphrased interpretations) of
A. the protocol to be followed if the resolutions on inspections were not complied with
B. what EXACT VERBATIM conditions, process or policy did Clinton and Congressional members sign in support of?
Also, is there a written PROTOCOL through the UN on how to proceed at this point,
if aggression was pursued that violated the agreed process. Then what are petitioners supposed to do to redress that violation?