Iraq War Vote

Discussion in 'Bull Ring Discussions and Call-Outs' started by Tehon, May 7, 2016.

  1. Tehon
    Offline

    Tehon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,204
    Thanks Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,541
    There were no conditions imposed, if there were we would have legal recourse, we don't.
     
  2. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,752
    Thanks Received:
    781
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    Tehon 14371282
    Nonsense. You have argued that Bush was enforcing one of the two conditions. This discussion is about Senator Clinton's vote - not about legal recourse for what Bush did.

    its a political matter whether a sitting U.S. Senator should be able to take a president from the opposing political party at his word on a matter involving use of military force

    It's a factual matter in determining whether a sitting U.S. Senator voted to authorize the use of military force on two conditions. One of which was the condition that military force be used 'in order to enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq"

    You deny the AUMF had that condition but you also claim the Bush was indeed enforcing that condition. Facts mean nothing to you.

    You would be right if the AUMF imposed a condition That read that military force be used 'in order to enforce the world's demands."

    You are so nice to Bush that you translate 'enforcing the world's demands as enforcing all relevant UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq".

    Bush said he was enforcing the world's demands because he could not say he was enforcing the UNSC's demands.

    You deny then Senator Clinton the ability to translate what exactly is written in the AUMF regarding a condition set as what is exactly written in reference to the UNSC.

    You grant Bush the ability to translate 'enforcing the world's demands' into 'enforcing the UNSC's demands' so you can make believe Bush complied with the AUMF and Hillary voted for language that is not in the AUMF.

    Why do you do that for Bush? Why do you protect him so?
     
  3. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,752
    Thanks Received:
    781
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    Tehon 14371272
    Did it exist prior to the date that Bush decided to terminate the 1441 inspection regime in order to enforce the world's demands instead of the UNSC's demands as Bush told you?
     
  4. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,752
    Thanks Received:
    781
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    Tehon 14371272
    It is written in the AUMF that he was being given the authorization to use military force in Iraq in order to "enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq.'

    You have made the absurd claim that Bush was indeed enforcing 'all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regar to Iraq.' But now you are admitting that he did not go back to the UNSC for approval.

    Bush was not given (according to any language found anywhere in the AUMF) authority to use military force in order to enforce the world's demands as Bush stated he was doing.

    Bush was given (according to actual language in the AUMF) authority to use military force in order to "enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq.'

    So which is it? Did Bush invade Iraq in order to enforce the world's demands or the UNSC's demands under Resolution 1441?
     
  5. Tehon
    Offline

    Tehon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,204
    Thanks Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,541
    Bush was given (according to actual language in the AUMF) authority to use military force in order to "enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq.'

    Yes, and both the AUMF and 1441 each reaffirmed Bush's belief that he had authority granted by UNSC resolutions and congress to compel Iraq to cease all activities that threatened world peace by any means necessary. This is the language that Clinton agreed with.



    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
    Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
    the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
    Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions

    and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
    international peace and security, including the development of
    weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
    Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
    Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
    in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
    (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
    in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
    949 (1994);

    Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
    Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
    ``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
    Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
    implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
    665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

    Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
    ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
    United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
    with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against
    Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
    civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
    Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
    security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
    Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
    goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';



    http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf
    Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
     
  6. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,752
    Thanks Received:
    781
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    Tehon 14377062

    Bush was given (according to actual language in the AUMF) authority to use military force in order to "enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq.'

    Do you see the word "all" above.

    That included one such as 1441 if it happened.

    1441 called for peaceful means to disarm Iraq.

    Bush agreed to 1441.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2016
  7. Tehon
    Offline

    Tehon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,204
    Thanks Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,541
    1441 also recalled its earlier authorization for member states to use all necessary means to implement all relevant resolutions. This is the type of thing that happens when you play loosey goosey with the language. You cry foul now but you didn't understand at the time the implications of the vote for the AUMF. You can be excused, Clinton not so much.

    Of course I don't believe for a second that she, a lawyer and lawmaker, didn't understand the implications of her vote.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2016
  8. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,752
    Thanks Received:
    781
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    Tehon 14377466

    Of course it recalled earlier resoluttions. But it stated this was Iraq's final opportunity to comply with all of them. Senator Clinton stated her interpretation of the AUMF the day she voted.

    You disregard the actual language that she voted in favor, and you insist somehow that the language did not apply to Bush's actions in the future.

    Well, Bush's actions after the vote was to join 14 UNSC members to unanimously agree to the language in UNSC Res 1441. That was agreement to disarm through the UN peacefully as the AUMF supported.

    Actual language in both documents support Senator Clinton's interpretation of them.

    And on March 3 2003 Senator Clinton announced her preference that 1441 inspections be allowed to continue.

    Bush drove the inspectors out of Iraq and started a war. And he said he did it to enforce the world's demands not Res 1441 demands and inspections.

    Yet you legitimize what Bush did to play out your uninformed unjustified hatred for Hillary Clinton.

    Your reasoning is very poor and very sad.

    You disallow Clinton to interpret the AUMF the way it actually reads. Yet you fabricate an absolutely absurd interpretation that favors Bush. Why are you so fond of Bush and hateful of Secretary Clinton?
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2016
  9. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,752
    Thanks Received:
    781
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    Tehon 14377466
    She understood the implications full well. You strike out the language that lawmakers such as herself negotiated into the AUMF. You do that to excuse Bush for deciding to force UN inspectors out and start the war.

    The lawmakers had a very specific condition with regard to the UNSC enforcement of all UNSC Resolutions covered in the AUMF.

    That was sufficient. You don't accept the fact that it is there? Why is it even there? If Senator Clinton was in on Bush's plan to lie peace and ignite war, why is that UNSC specific condition even there?
     
  10. Tehon
    Offline

    Tehon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,204
    Thanks Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,541
    Why are you so fond of Bush and hateful of Secretary Clinton?

    I am not fond of either. I was against the idea of using force against Iraq, which he did and which she enabled. I find them each equally disgusting people.
    I can read the way it actually reads for myself, I don't need to hear her interpretation of the AUMF. I understand the language and its implications and did so from the moment I read it. Knowing that she is a lawyer and a lawmaker, I have to believe she understood its implications as well. To believe otherwise would be naive.
     

Share This Page