Is Bush Solely to Blame for the Death of US Troops in Iraq?

[Iriemon]

Please don't twist my words around.

I've never claimed he wasn't authorized. Congress, including half the Dems, gave him authorization.

That is different than saying that Congress "voted to go in".

so he was authorized to invade iraq

but he wasn't authorized "to go in"

what kind of logic is that?

It wouldn't be any kind of logic. Why do you ask?

he exhausted all means, just because you don't thinks so doesn't mean he didn't. he had authority to invade and he lawfully followed that authority. that is a fact. your opinion on the matter is irrelevent.

No more irrelevant than yours.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The ground war in the war against terror had to be fought somewhere. If it were not, too many well-trained terrorists would have been available to launch asymmetrical attacks against US targets in and out of the US.

Iraq was a better place than most to have the ground war in this war. It should be apparent be now why Afghanistan was not the right place to do it.

My response to the rejoinder I am sure to hear that the "war created more terrorists" is that their training is against ground forces operating in the Middle East, not in asymmetric attacks against civilian targets in the US.

 

[Yurt]

Please don't twist my words around.

I've never claimed he wasn't authorized. Congress, including half the Dems, gave him authorization.

That is different than saying that Congress "voted to go in".

so he was authorized to invade iraq

but he wasn't authorized "to go in"

what kind of logic is that?

It wouldn't be any kind of logic. Why do you ask?

he exhausted all means, just because you don't thinks so doesn't mean he didn't. he had authority to invade and he lawfully followed that authority. that is a fact. your opinion on the matter is irrelevent.

No more irrelevant than yours.

you do realize that invading is going in....

 

[Iriemon]

so he was authorized to invade iraq

but he wasn't authorized "to go in"

what kind of logic is that?

It wouldn't be any kind of logic. Why do you ask?

he exhausted all means, just because you don't thinks so doesn't mean he didn't. he had authority to invade and he lawfully followed that authority. that is a fact. your opinion on the matter is irrelevent.

No more irrelevant than yours.

you do realize that invading is going in....

Sure.

You do realize that "Congress voting to go in" is different than Congress authorizing the president to go in if diplomacy fails?

 

[Yurt]

It wouldn't be any kind of logic. Why do you ask?



No more irrelevant than yours.

you do realize that invading is going in....

Sure.

You do realize that "Congress voting to go in" is different than Congress authorizing the president to go in if diplomacy fails?

ok, so you admit invading is going in....congress authorized bush to go in and invade, that is a fact

diplomacy did in fact fail...that is a fact. you can play armchair warrior all you want, but the CIC determined that diplomacy failed and thus under the authorization granted by congress, invaded iraq.

you're making no sense and trying to split a very fine hair because you don't want to admit you're wrong.

 

[Iriemon]

you do realize that invading is going in....

Sure.

You do realize that "Congress voting to go in" is different than Congress authorizing the president to go in if diplomacy fails?

ok, so you admit invading is going in....congress authorized bush to go in and invade, that is a fact

Do you have a point?

Congress authorized Bush to make the decision. Congress did not vote on the decision or "vote to to in."

The difference is who made the decision. Congress gave authority to Bush to make the decision. Congress did not make the decision of vote to go in or in favor of the war.

Bush made the decision to go in.

diplomacy did in fact fail...that is a fact.

That is a matter of dispute.

you're making no sense and trying to split a very fine hair because you don't want to admit you're wrong.

No, you continue to mischaracterize my statements to try to make an argument. You do it all the time. Stop doing that and we'll waste a lot less time.

 

[Yurt]

i can't believe you still don't get it....

according to law, the CIC determined that invasion was necessary, that is a fact.

even democrats admit they authorized invasion, obama hammered hillary on it

but do keep up your weird beliefs, even cindy sheehan doesn't agree with you

 

[Iriemon]

i can't believe you still don't get it....

according to law, the CIC determined that invasion was necessary, that is a fact.

even democrats admit they authorized invasion, obama hammered hillary on it

but do keep up your weird beliefs, even cindy sheehan doesn't agree with you

I don't get how you can make these semantic arguments mischaracterizing what I write.

I get that Congress authorized Bush to make the decision, that Bush determined that invasion was necessary for whatever reason, that a bunch of Dems voted for the authorization to let Bush make the decision. I've said that for 4 posts now.

That is not the same as saying the Dems "voted to go in." They did not.

I can't believe you still don't get it.

 

[Yurt]

i can't believe you still don't get it....

according to law, the CIC determined that invasion was necessary, that is a fact.

even democrats admit they authorized invasion, obama hammered hillary on it

but do keep up your weird beliefs, even cindy sheehan doesn't agree with you

I don't get how you can make these semantic arguments mischaracterizing what I write.

I get that Congress authorized Bush to make the decision, that Bush determined that invasion was necessary for whatever reason, that a bunch of Dems voted for the authorization to let Bush make the decision. I've said that for 4 posts now.

That is not the same as saying the Dems "voted to go in." They did not.

I can't believe you still don't get it.

what is wrong with you...

you already admitted that invade means to go in, so yes, in they voted to go in...how the hell do you think america wages war? they authorized bush to go in and he did....

they specifically voted to allow bush to go in, the CIC commands the troops, not the legislature, so by giving bush authorization, they in fact voted to go in

did any republicans vote to go in?

 

[Iriemon]

i can't believe you still don't get it....

according to law, the CIC determined that invasion was necessary, that is a fact.

even democrats admit they authorized invasion, obama hammered hillary on it

but do keep up your weird beliefs, even cindy sheehan doesn't agree with you

I don't get how you can make these semantic arguments mischaracterizing what I write.

I get that Congress authorized Bush to make the decision, that Bush determined that invasion was necessary for whatever reason, that a bunch of Dems voted for the authorization to let Bush make the decision. I've said that for 4 posts now.

That is not the same as saying the Dems "voted to go in." They did not.

I can't believe you still don't get it.

what is wrong with you...

you already admitted that invade means to go in, so yes, in they voted to go in...

What is wrong with you?

Congress never voted to go to war with Iraq or to invade Iraq.

If you contend otherwise please show me the bill or resolution.

But don't show me the Joint Resolution on Iraq. That Nov 2002 vote was not a vote to go in, it was not a vote to invade Iraq, but to give Bush the authority to make the decision do so if diplomacy failed.

how the hell do you think america wages war? they authorized bush to go in and he did....

they specifically voted to allow bush to go in, the CIC commands the troops, not the legislature, so by giving bush authorization, they in fact voted to go in

did any republicans vote to go in?

America wages war in many ways. Sometimes Congress votes to declare war. Sometimes the president just does it if it is less than a 60 day action, sometimes Congress gives specifica authority to use force, sometimes Congress gives the president the authority to decide whether to go to war.

The latter is what happened in Iraq.

 

[Care4all]

As a Dove, I THINK these basic principles should be followed before going to war:


Principles of the Just War

A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from
using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

also, this should be taken to heart by our leaders as well imo...

Proverbs 24:6
For by wise guidance you will wage war....



and then the simple term of war preparation:

Know your enemy before you wage war with them... was not followed in my opinion....nothing was thought through or with wise advise it seems...

So, bottom line, and as mentioned, a devout Dove, the deaths from the Iraqi war does rest on President Bush's shoulders, the buck does stop with him as our Leader and Commander in chief....and the Advisors he picked to advise him.

There still may be a legitimate argument that all the deaths that occurred in the Iraq war can be justified because of yah dee dah reasons to some, but ultimately, those deaths did occur because our leader, with poor advice in my opinion, is the one who chose this war...(and asked Congress to support whatever his decision was regarding going to war) thus responsible for the deaths that occurred, whether justified war deaths or not justified war deaths.

PS
I am hopeless on this topic, there is no "changing me" on my opinion on this so those of you that supported the war, should just not bother!

care

 

[Yurt]

I don't get how you can make these semantic arguments mischaracterizing what I write.

I get that Congress authorized Bush to make the decision, that Bush determined that invasion was necessary for whatever reason, that a bunch of Dems voted for the authorization to let Bush make the decision. I've said that for 4 posts now.

That is not the same as saying the Dems "voted to go in." They did not.

I can't believe you still don't get it.

what is wrong with you...

you already admitted that invade means to go in, so yes, in they voted to go in...

What is wrong with you?

Congress never voted to go to war with Iraq or to invade Iraq.

If you contend otherwise please show me the bill or resolution.

But don't show me the Joint Resolution on Iraq. That Nov 2002 vote was not a vote to go in, it was not a vote to invade Iraq, but to give Bush the authority to make the decision do so if diplomacy failed.

how the hell do you think america wages war? they authorized bush to go in and he did....

they specifically voted to allow bush to go in, the CIC commands the troops, not the legislature, so by giving bush authorization, they in fact voted to go in

did any republicans vote to go in?

America wages war in many ways. Sometimes Congress votes to declare war. Sometimes the president just does it if it is less than a 60 day action, sometimes Congress gives specifica authority to use force, sometimes Congress gives the president the authority to decide whether to go to war.

The latter is what happened in Iraq.

dude, it didn't authorize him to go in, but it authorized him to go in if diplomacy failed....that is authorization...wtf is wrong with you?

hillary clinton ADMITS there was authorization, she tried to revoke that authorization you ninny

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq, injecting presidential politics into the congressional debate over war funding

Senator Clinton Proposes Vote to Rescind Bush’s War Authorization - The Tech

the congress gave bush authority to invade and go into iraq. he did, they authorized the war. the senators who voted for that authorization admit it, you would think they know more than you, afterall they voted for that authorization.

it is a complete red herring about congress actually declaring war....this entire issue is about congress AUTHORIZING BUSH TO INVADE iraq. you said they did not vote to go in, but they did. if X did not happen, then they authorized bush to invade or go in.

you and jillian are the only people i know arguing this non existent point. just admit you are wrong and move on. you making yourself look silly.

 

[Iriemon]

what is wrong with you...

you already admitted that invade means to go in, so yes, in they voted to go in...

What is wrong with you?

Congress never voted to go to war with Iraq or to invade Iraq.

If you contend otherwise please show me the bill or resolution.

But don't show me the Joint Resolution on Iraq. That Nov 2002 vote was not a vote to go in, it was not a vote to invade Iraq, but to give Bush the authority to make the decision do so if diplomacy failed.



America wages war in many ways. Sometimes Congress votes to declare war. Sometimes the president just does it if it is less than a 60 day action, sometimes Congress gives specifica authority to use force, sometimes Congress gives the president the authority to decide whether to go to war.

The latter is what happened in Iraq.

dude, it didn't authorize him to go in, but it authorized him to go in if diplomacy failed....that is authorization...wtf is wrong with you?

hillary clinton ADMITS there was authorization, she tried to revoke that authorization you ninny

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq, injecting presidential politics into the congressional debate over war funding

Senator Clinton Proposes Vote to Rescind Bush’s War Authorization - The Tech

the congress gave bush authority to invade and go into iraq. he did, they authorized the war. the senators who voted for that authorization admit it, you would think they know more than you, afterall they voted for that authorization.

it is a complete red herring about congress actually declaring war....this entire issue is about congress AUTHORIZING BUSH TO INVADE iraq. you said they did not vote to go in, but they did. if X did not happen, then they authorized bush to invade or go in.

you and jillian are the only people i know arguing this non existent point. just admit you are wrong and move on. you making yourself look silly.

I'm going to assume here that you are not just writing this just for the sake of making silly semantic argument, but that there really is a lack of communication and understanding.

Let's start with a basic definitional proposition:

Do you agree that voting to authorize someone to make the decision to go to war if certain conditions occur, is not the same as voting to go to war?

 

[Yurt]

What is wrong with you?

Congress never voted to go to war with Iraq or to invade Iraq.

If you contend otherwise please show me the bill or resolution.

But don't show me the Joint Resolution on Iraq. That Nov 2002 vote was not a vote to go in, it was not a vote to invade Iraq, but to give Bush the authority to make the decision do so if diplomacy failed.



America wages war in many ways. Sometimes Congress votes to declare war. Sometimes the president just does it if it is less than a 60 day action, sometimes Congress gives specifica authority to use force, sometimes Congress gives the president the authority to decide whether to go to war.

The latter is what happened in Iraq.

dude, it didn't authorize him to go in, but it authorized him to go in if diplomacy failed....that is authorization...wtf is wrong with you?

hillary clinton ADMITS there was authorization, she tried to revoke that authorization you ninny

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq, injecting presidential politics into the congressional debate over war funding

Senator Clinton Proposes Vote to Rescind Bush’s War Authorization - The Tech

the congress gave bush authority to invade and go into iraq. he did, they authorized the war. the senators who voted for that authorization admit it, you would think they know more than you, afterall they voted for that authorization.

it is a complete red herring about congress actually declaring war....this entire issue is about congress AUTHORIZING BUSH TO INVADE iraq. you said they did not vote to go in, but they did. if X did not happen, then they authorized bush to invade or go in.

you and jillian are the only people i know arguing this non existent point. just admit you are wrong and move on. you making yourself look silly.

I'm going to assume here that you are not just writing this just for the sake of making silly semantic argument, but that there really is a lack of communication and understanding.

Let's start with a basic definitional proposition:

Do you agree that voting to authorize someone to make the decision to go to war if certain conditions occur, is not the same as voting to go to war?

it is absolutely the same.

if you're my broker and i tell you to make the decision to buy apple stock if it hits $X, but to sell it if it goes below $Y, did i (vote) to buy that stock?

or are you actually telling me that it was all up to the broker and i never (voted) for him to buy that stock?

 

[Iriemon]

dude, it didn't authorize him to go in, but it authorized him to go in if diplomacy failed....that is authorization...wtf is wrong with you?

hillary clinton ADMITS there was authorization, she tried to revoke that authorization you ninny



Senator Clinton Proposes Vote to Rescind Bush’s War Authorization - The Tech

the congress gave bush authority to invade and go into iraq. he did, they authorized the war. the senators who voted for that authorization admit it, you would think they know more than you, afterall they voted for that authorization.

it is a complete red herring about congress actually declaring war....this entire issue is about congress AUTHORIZING BUSH TO INVADE iraq. you said they did not vote to go in, but they did. if X did not happen, then they authorized bush to invade or go in.

you and jillian are the only people i know arguing this non existent point. just admit you are wrong and move on. you making yourself look silly.

I'm going to assume here that you are not just writing this just for the sake of making silly semantic argument, but that there really is a lack of communication and understanding.

Let's start with a basic definitional proposition:

Do you agree that voting to authorize someone to make the decision to go to war if certain conditions occur, is not the same as voting to go to war?

it is absolutely the same.

OK I see the problem. You say that authorizing someone to decide to go to war is the same as voting to go to war.

If the Joint Resolution was a vote to go to war, why didn't we go to war in Nov 2002?

if you're my broker and i tell you to make the decision to buy apple stock if it hits $X, but to sell it if it goes below $Y, did i (vote) to buy that stock?

or are you actually telling me that it was all up to the broker and i never (voted) for him to buy that stock

No. You voted to buy it *only if* it hit $X. If it did not hit $X you did *not* vote to buy that stock. It was not a vote to buy it; unless some condition happened.

That is the difference. A "vte to go in" would be an unconditional vote. It would be like you telling your broker: "Buy apply stock". There is no question you voted to buy apple stock.

That is not what happened with Congress. Congress did not vote to "buy Apple stock" but to do so only if some condition occurred.

But this situation is not analogous because 1) it doesn't give discretion to the broker to buy the stock, and 2) Congress did not say Bush had to invade, but authorized him to use force. He could have just bombed Iraq. He made the decision to invade and occupy.

Let's make it more analogous: If I tell the broker to decide what stock to buy for me and to buy it only if he thinks its a good deal, did I (vote) to buy Apple stock?

 

[del]

I'm going to assume here that you are not just writing this just for the sake of making silly semantic argument, but that there really is a lack of communication and understanding.

Let's start with a basic definitional proposition:

Do you agree that voting to authorize someone to make the decision to go to war if certain conditions occur, is not the same as voting to go to war?

it is absolutely the same.

OK I see the problem. You say that authorizing someone to decide to go to war is the same as voting to go to war.

If the Joint Resolution was a vote to go to war, why didn't we go to war in Nov 2002?

if you're my broker and i tell you to make the decision to buy apple stock if it hits $X, but to sell it if it goes below $Y, did i (vote) to buy that stock?

or are you actually telling me that it was all up to the broker and i never (voted) for him to buy that stock

No. You voted to buy it *only if* it hit $X. If it did not hit $X you did *not* vote to buy that stock. It was not a vote to buy it; unless some condition happened.

But this situation is not analogous because it doesn't give discretion to the broker to buy the stock.

Let's make it more analogous: If I tell the broker to decide whether to buy Apple stock for me only if he thinks its a good buy, did I (vote) to buy that stock?

no, you "voted" to leave it to the broker's discretion as to whether or not to buy the stock. good analogy.


now, if he buys the stock in good faith and it tanks, are you responsible?

i would say yes.

 

[Care4all]

it's still not quite precise enough of an analogy Del!

first, the broker came to you and begged you to give him permission to buy in to a stock for you....

you in turn said no, ONLY IF THE STOCK hits X amount and under X conditions, will you give him permission to buy in to that stock.

your broker said fine, and signed the agreement with you to ONLY buy the stock with your money under those key conditions...

your broker, proceeded to buy the stock with your money even though, the stock never met the measures of your signed agreement, or never hit X amount or the X conditions.

Who should be held accountable for the purchase of that stock?

 

[Iriemon]

it is absolutely the same.

OK I see the problem. You say that authorizing someone to decide to go to war is the same as voting to go to war.

If the Joint Resolution was a vote to go to war, why didn't we go to war in Nov 2002?

if you're my broker and i tell you to make the decision to buy apple stock if it hits $X, but to sell it if it goes below $Y, did i (vote) to buy that stock?

or are you actually telling me that it was all up to the broker and i never (voted) for him to buy that stock

No. You voted to buy it *only if* it hit $X. If it did not hit $X you did *not* vote to buy that stock. It was not a vote to buy it; unless some condition happened.

But this situation is not analogous because it doesn't give discretion to the broker to buy the stock.

Let's make it more analogous: If I tell the broker to decide whether to buy Apple stock for me only if he thinks its a good buy, did I (vote) to buy that stock?

no, you "voted" to leave it to the broker's discretion as to whether or not to buy the stock. good analogy.

now, if he buys the stock in good faith and it tanks, are you responsible?

i would say yes.

Ha ha, clever, you got me with my own hypo. Well that is a good point too. And in one sense I agree, yes you are responsible because you authorized the broker to make the decision for you, even though you didn't make the decision to buy the stock. And in that way yes Congress is responsible for giving the authority to the president.

I could expand the hypo and introduce facts that make it murkier -- eg the broker mislead you about what kind of stocks he would buy etc. But I think we understand the point.

 

[del]

OK I see the problem. You say that authorizing someone to decide to go to war is the same as voting to go to war.

If the Joint Resolution was a vote to go to war, why didn't we go to war in Nov 2002?



No. You voted to buy it *only if* it hit $X. If it did not hit $X you did *not* vote to buy that stock. It was not a vote to buy it; unless some condition happened.

But this situation is not analogous because it doesn't give discretion to the broker to buy the stock.

Let's make it more analogous: If I tell the broker to decide whether to buy Apple stock for me only if he thinks its a good buy, did I (vote) to buy that stock?

no, you "voted" to leave it to the broker's discretion as to whether or not to buy the stock. good analogy.

now, if he buys the stock in good faith and it tanks, are you responsible?

i would say yes.

Ha ha, clever, you got me with my own hypo. Well that is a good point too. And in one sense I agree, yes you are responsible because you authorized the broker to make the decision for you, even though you didn't make the decision to buy the stock. And in that way yes Congress is responsible for giving the authority to the president.

I could expand the hypo and introduce facts that make it murkier -- eg the broker mislead you about what kind of stocks he would buy etc. But we understand the point.

i wasn't trying to play gotcha, just working with your analogy which as i said was a good one. congress can't authorize a president to use his discretion and then cry foul when he does, IMO. if they questioned his discretion and/or intent, then they should have voted to withhold authorization.


i've been opposed to the iraqi war since before its inception, but i don't think that people that supported it are evil, just wrong.

 

[del]

it's still not quite precise enough of an analogy Del!

first, the broker came to you and begged you to give him permission to buy in to a stock for you....

you in turn said no, ONLY IF THE STOCK hits X amount and under X conditions, will you give him permission to buy in to that stock.

your broker said fine, and signed the agreement with you to ONLY buy the stock with your money under those key conditions...

your broker, proceeded to buy the stock with your money even though, the stock never met the measures of your signed agreement, or never hit X amount or the X conditions.

Who should be held accountable for the purchase of that stock?

i see your point cares, but i think ultimately it is my responsibility for signing the agreement. that doesn't mean that the broker is blameless, but i have to take responsibility for misjudging the broker's integrity, imo.