Iraq War Vote

[Tehon]

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?

NotfooledbyW, why the hesitation bud?

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?

 

[Tehon]

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.

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.

My position is that Bush acted within the framework set forth by the language in the AUMF as authored by Congress. And I expect that your response to emilynghiem questions will validate my position.

 

[Tehon]

Ok NotfooledbyW , it's time to put up or shut up, let's take it to the bullring. I challenge you to a 1 hr or less debate discussing Hillary Clinton's vote on the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force. The question is, was her vote a vote for war or something else which you are free to describe. The debate should be overseen and voted on by a panel of 3 judges selected from a pool of willing participants or we might set up an open poll to decide who's opinion is more valid. We will decide on the date and time after we have arranged for the panel or voting system.

Dear Tehon
there are two key places that I find most easily explain how
this whole Iraq War vote runs outside purely Constitutional authority
1. One is in injecting UN policies and resolutions as conditions that the US federal govt enforces. Not all the public agrees to that, so this becomes questionable to begin with
If people agree, it is a matter of faith if people believe the UN represents American values "under the Constitution" and not outside of it, similar to when people agree to let
Christian or other sources of values and principles influence govt decisions, it is a matter
of choice and consent whether we agree to that principle.
2. Another level is whether or not the UN process itself called for war to be the next step.
According to some sources, they could have opted to meet and address democratically what steps to take next once the resolutions on inspections wasn't followed.

so if the vote authorizes use of military force, then that is what she is supporting by voting yes.

However, if you want to call official declarations of war only what is under Constitutional jurisdiction and governance of process,
then, no this wasn't a PURELY
"Constitutional vote on Constitutional war by Constitutional standards."

Because people did not consent to it IN SPIRIT, you can easily find conflicts and argue "BY THE LETTER" that it was outside the process of Congress voting to declare War officially.

Many people interpret it as military aggression or invasion outside the lawful protocol.

In effect, it has the same impact as war
but does not necessarily carry the same weight of authority as an official one
since other policies were mixed in that may or may not represent the voting public and what authority we consented to be governed under Constitutionally.

I believe it was a political response to a political act of violence,
and both are part of a spiritual process of humanity going through war to get to peace.

It is not fully Constitutionally as neither is Obama's imposition of ACA mandates
Constitutional but another example of a political strategy, stretching the role and office
of govt to achieve that effect.

The argument focuses on the language contained in the AUMF and not the constitutionality of it. When I say that Clinton's vote was one for war it is based on the principle of it. The vote amounted to giving the president unconditional authorization to use the military at his discretion. It was plainly evident at the time the vote was taken that Bush intended to use the military to disarm Sadam Hussein of his non existent WMD.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14249957

My position is that Bush acted within the framework set forth by the language in the AUMF as authored by Congress. And I expect that your response to emilynghiem questions will validate my position.

Your position is that Bush was enforcing ALL relevant UNSC resolutions when he decided to not enforce the most relevant one at the time that he alone decided to invade which was UNSC 1441. That is absurd.

I will respond to emilynghiem when I have time. That question and my response has nothing to do with the absurdity you keep posting.

The language in the AUMF was quite specific / military force was to be used to enforce all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq. Bush did not follow that requirement. Your leap into an absurd argument does not mean that he did.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14250190

It was plainly evident at the time the vote was taken that Bush intended to use the military to disarm Sadam Hussein of his non existent WMD.

It was not plainly evident at the time. That is mere opinion on your part that is contradicted by the facts. What was plainly evident are Bush's direction and actions within the United Nations seeking a diplomatic solution in order to avoid war. The call that needed to be made by US Congress members was whether seeking a peaceful resolution backed by Congressional consent to the use of force in advance would best become a deterrent for Saddam Hussein to fully consent and avoid war versus not giving consent and then perhaps Saddam Hussein repeats his past behavior and that obstruction gives Bush the opportunity to act based on the AUMF that was passed immediately following the attacks on 9/11/01 as well as the War Powers Act giving a President 90 days to use the military to eliminate a threat before military funding could be cut.

And it was not clear that WMD were non- existent in October 2002 because there were no UN inspectors on the ground that Saddam. Hussein enabled to verify the existence of WMD or not.

You are projecting what became later known and much clearer starting around January 2003 with the new round of inspections underway on to the Congress members four months earlier.

You are claiming to know with certainty in October 2002 from the couch in your living room 7,000 miles away what the UNSC inspection teams did not know for certain at all.

This is just more fallacy in your argument that must be exposed.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14250190

The argument focuses on the language contained in the AUMF and not the constitutionality of it.

Your argument is not focused on the language contained in the AUMF because you ignore the language about enforcing all UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq by making it meaningless and absurd by offering an argument that Bush had the authority to over ride the will and intent of the UNSC MAJORITY and enforce their most recent active and relevant resolution 1441 as he saw fit. When you know Bush terminated 1441. He in no way 'enforced' it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14250190

When I say that Clinton's vote was one for war it is based on the principle of i

I told you several times now that Clinton's vote was for war and she was in support of war if diplomacy could not resolve the WMD threat as well as Saddam Hussein remaining defiant and in violation of international law.

I'm saying Senator Clinton was justified in expecting that Bush would use military force in order to enforce All relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq. She should not have expected Bush to use military force to terminate UNSC enforcement of its own resolutions when that enforcement was being conducted peacefully,

She stated so publically prior to Bush's decision to terminate 1441 inspections and invade Iraq in order to 'inspect' Iraq without the UN by doing it with US Combat troops that were not fully prepared to carry out that mission and deal with an insurgency and occupation when the goal was enforcement of UN Resolutions with regard to WMD.

 

[Tehon]

Tehon 14250190

The argument focuses on the language contained in the AUMF and not the constitutionality of it.

Your argument is not focused on the language contained in the AUMF because you ignore the language about enforcing all UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq by making it meaningless and absurd by offering an argument that Bush had the authority to over ride the will and intent of the UNSC MAJORITY and enforce their most recent active and relevant resolution 1441 as he saw fit. When you know Bush terminated 1441. He in no way 'enforced' it.

Of course the entire argument is about the language in the document. And I ignore nothing, it is you who are reading into it that which does not exist. Which is why I can't understand why you haven't responded to emilynghiem questions yet. It should be easy for you, no?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14251556

And I ignore nothing, it is you who are reading into it that which does not exist.

Why don't you bring try to defend your absurd argument that Bush was enforcing a UN Resolution (1441) militarily as he actually terminated the UN's diplomatic enforcement of it?

So are you saying Bush was not required in the AUMF LANGUAGE to enforce all UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq if he determined it was becessary to use military force.

I'm spending the weekend with my wife at a resort in the ALLEGHENY mountains. I'll respond when I have plenty of time.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14251556

. Of course the entire argument is about the language in the document

No the language in the AUMF and 1441 supports the argument I have presented. The only matter that you keep ignoring is your absurd insistence that Bush was enforcing militarily a UN Rrsolution that the majority on the UNSC deemed fully enforceable by peaceful means through proper and legitimate UN inspections.

You are being absurd and only you can make you not being absurd.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

When I say that Clinton's vote was one for war it is based on the principle of it. The vote amounted to giving the president unconditional authorization to use the military at his discretion.

You are leaving out the specific condition that his discretion was to use military force in order to enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq. So you have to ask yourself if ending peaceful UN inspections that were determined by the majority on the UNSC to be working and continued, was in fact 'enforcing' that Resolution designated as 1441.

Why did Hillary go public several weeks before the decision to invade was made stating her preference for continued inspections if her expectation was when she visited was that war would be the only outcome.

You can't read her mind so you must listen to what she said and therefore know what she expected Bush to do based upon specific AUMF language that she knew was in the AUMF.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

When I say that Clinton's vote was one for war it is based on the principle of it. The vote amounted to giving the president unconditional authorization to use the military at his discretion.

You are leaving out the specific condition that his discretion was to use military force in order to enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutuin with regard to Iraq. So you have to ask yourself if ending peaceful UN inspections that were determined by the majority on the UNSC to be working and continued, was in fact 'enforcing' that Resolution designated as 1441.

Why did Hillary go public several weeks before the decision to invade was made stating her preference for continued inspections if her expectation was when she voted was that war would be the only outcome.

You can't read her mind so you must listen to what she said and therefore know what she expected Bush to do based upon specific AUMF language that she knew wa

 

[Tehon]

When I say that Clinton's vote was one for war it is based on the principle of it. The vote amounted to giving the president unconditional authorization to use the military at his discretion.

You are leaving out the specific condition that his discretion was to use military force in order to enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq. So you have to ask yourself if ending peaceful UN inspections that were determined by the majority on the UNSC to be working and continued, was in fact 'enforcing' that Resolution designated as 1441.

Why did Hillary go public several weeks before the decision to invade was made stating her preference for continued inspections if her expectation was when she visited was that war would be the only outcome.

You can't read her mind so you must listen to what she said and therefore know what she expected Bush to do based upon specific AUMF language that she knew was in the AUMF.

I can't read her mind, I also can't believe a word she says, therefore I must judge her by her actions. She can say anything she wants, the fact of the matter is that there is no specific language in the AUMF that dictates how Bush was to proceed, her vote was only to gIve the president congressional approval to use military force. You know this, it is why you are avoiding emilynghiem

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?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14258585

She can say anything she wants, the fact of the matter is that there is no specific language in the AUMF that dictates how Bush was to proceed, her vote was only to gIve the president congressional approval to use military force.

This is just an outright lie:

"the fact of the matter is that there is no specific language in the AUMF that dictates how Bush was to proceed"

Bush could only use military force if he was enforcing all UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq.

So now you are not just ignoring it you are flat out lying that it is not in the AUMF. It's there. It is not going to go away.

If you can't read her mind how do you know Senstor Clinton wanted Bush to force UN inspections to end and start a war when she publically stated that she wanted Bush to keep the UN inspections going and avoid war.

You know she was lying when she said she wanted the same peaceful resolution that Bush said he wanted - How?

Have you done a brain scan or do you have magical mind reading powers or something.

You are amazing.

 

[Tehon]

This is just an outright lie:

"the fact of the matter is that there is no specific language in the AUMF that dictates how Bush was to proceed"

Bush could only use military force if he was enforcing all UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq.

So now you are not just ignoring it you are flat out lying that it is not in the AUMF. It's there. It is not going to go away.

Why haven't you responded to emilynghiem's questions?

If you can't read her mind how do you know Senstor Clinton wanted Bush to force UN inspections to end and start a war when she publically stated that she wanted Bush to keep the UN inspections going and avoid war.

You know she was lying when she said she wanted the same peaceful resolution that Bush said he wanted - How?

Have you done a brain scan or do you have magical mind reading powers or something.

It only seems like magic, the reality is that she voted 'no' on an amendment that would have kept the UN inspections going and avoided war. We have gone over all this already. She can say whatever she wants, her voting record reveals that she is indeed a liar.

You are amazing.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14258585

I can't read her mind, I also can't believe a word she says, therefore I must judge her by her actions.

Her action was based on the language in the AUMF that you won't accept is in there. So you are not of sound enough mind to judge her.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14271197

It only seems like magic, the reality is that she voted 'no' on an amendment that would have kept the UN inspections going and avoided war.

There were no inspections going on at the time of her vote and at the time of that amendment. So your claim is false and entirely baseless. It is not based on reality. You can't know if inspections would have been revived and become as successful as they did without the threat of military action that the AUMF provided in advance.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14271197

She can say whatever she wants, her voting record reveals that she is indeed a liar.

Explain how her voting record on Iraq reveals she is a liar. Lied about what?

Yes you generate great wonder and astonishment that you think you can read Senator Clinton's mind to know she did not want Bush to allow the UN Inspections that were working to ENFORCE UNSC Resolution 1441 to continue in order to avoid war.

 

[Tehon]

Tehon 14271197

It only seems like magic, the reality is that she voted 'no' on an amendment that would have kept the UN inspections going and avoided war.

There were no inspections going on at the time of her vote and at the time of that amendment. So your claim is false and entirely baseless. It is not based on reality. You can't know if inspections would have been revived and become as successful as they did without the threat of military action that the AUMF provided in advance.

Iraq and the UN had already come to an agreement on implementation of inspections based on previous resolutions. Authorizing military force was unnecessary. Levin's amendment would have allowed that process to play out and slowed down a president who was hell bent on war. Hillary voted for war, and voted against allowing UN inspections to take place, which Levin's amendment would have required.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14271532

Iraq and the UN had already come to an agreement on implementation of inspections based on previous resolutions.

Then why did the UNSC fifteen members vote unanimously for Res 1441?

So you knew in advance that Saddam Hussein was not bluffing or stalling as he had been doing for over a decade in violation of every single UNSC resolution passed against him.

Your highly developed precognitive ability is truly amazing.

You knew the UN would act and Saddam Hussein would comply a whole month before 1441 was passed.

Not everybody has the certainty of knowing the future as you do. Senator Clinton does not have the luxury of your amazing ability. It's not fair to judge her based upon your being a fortune teller.

Or did you know Saddam Hussein personally and he told you he was serious that time back in October 2002?