Republican Team ISIS Fighters quitting their 'lost cause' fight.

[Tehon]

You need to explain why Bush did not do what the AUMF told him to do.

What did the AUMF tell Bush to do?

That is easy:

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Does it say to enforce the UN resolutions diplomatically or with inspectors? Or does it say specifically to use the military to force Iraq into compliance with the resolutions?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14185893

Does it say to enforce the UN resolutions diplomatically or with inspectors? Or does it say specifically to use the military to force Iraq into compliance with the resolutions?

It says to use the Armed Forces of the United States in order to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Bush did not enforce (diplomatically or militarily) all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq when he decided to invade Iraq in absolute defiance and disregard for ALL UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq as well as the majority on the UNSC.

He was not authorized by the AUMF vote in October 2002 to use military force against Iraq in order to commit such an insane act.

Just the facts.

Do you think Bush's invasion of Iraq was in compliance with and enforcement of ALL UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq? That is including the Diplomatic peaceful Resolution that Bush asked for and was passed unanimously by the UNSC.

 

[Tehon]

He was not authorized use military force against Iraq in order to commit such an insane act by the AUMF vote in October 2002.

Of course he was, they left it completely to his discretion. Why else would they give him the unconditional authorization. If Congress intended to compel him into diplomacy as you are claiming, then they would have adopted the Spratt amendment which does compel him into diplomacy and also puts conditions on the use of the military.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION TO USE FORCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEW UNITED
NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS.

The President is authorized to use United States Armed Forces
pursuant to any resolution of the United Nations Security
Council adopted after September 12, 2002, that provides for the
elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ballistic
missiles with ranges exceeding 150 kilometers, and the means of
producing such weapons and missiles. Nothing in the preceding
sentence shall be construed to prevent or otherwise limit the
authority of the Armed Forces to use all appropriate force for
self defense and enforcement purposes.

SEC. 4. PRESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATIONS.

In the event that the United Nations Security Council does
not adopt a resolution as described in section 3, or in the
event that such a resolution is adopted but does not sanction
the use of force sufficient to compel Iraq's compliance, and if
the President determines that use of the United States Armed
Forces is necessary for such compliance, the President should
seek authorization from Congress to use military force to
compel such compliance by invoking the expedited procedures set
forth in section 5 after the President submits to the Speaker
of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore
of the Senate a certification that--
H. Rept. 107-724 - PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 114, AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14186494

Of course he was, they left it completely to his discretion.

They did not leave it to Bush's discretion to defy ALL UNSC Resolutions against Iraq. He was told to enforce ALL relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq. The inspectors were enforcing ALL UNSC resolutions with regard to Iraq at the time Bush forced them to leave and commit the insane unilateral invasion of Iraq. He did nothing that could be called enforcing ALL relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq.

You would have to be a blithering idiot to believe as you apparently do that Bush was indeed enforcing ALL relevant UNSC resolutions with regard to Iraq. The UNSC wanted no such invasion. The Council wanted continuation of peaceful inspections.

Hillary did not vote for an AUMF that said Bush could defy ALL relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq and start killing people.

You have erased the most important statement in the AUMF to make it appear that Hillary voted for something that she did not.

You can't erase a statement in a Congressional document to suit your fallacious argument.

Did they teach you that in college?

Tell me that you believe Bush was 'enforcing' diplomatic and peaceful UNSC resolution 1441
When he told the 200 UN inspectors they had to leave Iraq for their safety so he could start bombing and invading the place.

 

[Tehon]

He was told to enforce ALL relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq.

He was told to enforce them with military force.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14186494

If Congress intended to compel him into diplomacy as you are claiming, then they would have adopted the Spratt amendment which does compel him into diplomacy and also puts conditions on the use of the military.

I am not claiming that. Congress specifically intended to compel Bush to enforce ALL relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq. Bush did not do that. Bush defied ALL relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq when he told the peaceful UN inspectors to leave.

That is what the document says and you can't admit it says it.

Don't redefine my argument. War was deliberately authorized if Saddam Hussein did not submit to unfettered inspections. The problem for Bush and you apparently is the historical and undeniable fact that SH did in fact submit to completely unfettered inspections.

Bush did not need to be compelled to use diplomacy. That is what Bush said and still says was his first choice. That was and still is a lie. Why do you defend that lie?

Bush is a liar because he got unfettered inspections but he attacked Iraq anyway. But his attack was not authorized by the October 2002 AUMF vote as it is worded.

So do you believe Bush was enforcing ALL relevant UNSC resolutions with regard to Iraq when he forced the Res 1441 inspectors to leave so he could start killing Iraqis and getting Americans killed?

Why won't you answer a simple yes or no question?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14186716

He was told to enforce them with military force.

So you have come around to realize that Bush was given two conditions in the AUMF. He was told to enforce ALL relevant UNSC resolutions with regard to Iraq, but he did not in fact enforce ALL relevant UNSC resolutions when he told the inspectors (that were enforcing ALL relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq including 1441) to leave for their safety. They were not in any danger from the Iraqi side. They were about to be endangered by the U.S. And UK side.

Do you believe defying the UNSC and Res 1441 was in fact 'enforcing ALL relevant UNSC resolutions with regard to Iraq' as the as written AUMF required Bush to do?

Yes or no? What is your answer?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14186716

He was told to enforce them with military force.

No Bush was clearly told he was authorized to use military force in order to enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq. That's it. You've gone and changed the wording.

What Bush did is quite the opposite. He used military force to make the most relevant and peaceful UNSC Resolution totally unenforceable.

Bush took over the search for WMD in Iraq from the UNSC through the use of military force. That is not "enforcing all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq" as the AUMF required Bush to do. It is the opposite. Hillary did not vote for that outcome in any way shape or form.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14185893

Does it say to enforce the UN resolutions diplomatically or with inspectors? Or does it say specifically to use the military to force Iraq into compliance with the resolutions?

It says neither. Why not cite the AUMF language verbatim as I do? What is your point anyway?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If Congress intended to compel him into diplomacy as you are claiming,....

I do not 'claim' your nonsense. Bush publically favored diplomacy by his own volition. There was no need to compel Bush into diplomacy when the vote was taken.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

• 
  The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
  
  • 
    (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
    
    (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
    

 

[Tehon]

Why not cite the AUMF language verbatim as I do? What is your point anyway?

Because you don't understand the language as it is written. I'm trying to get you to look at it differently so that you may begin to understand it.

No Bush was clearly told he was authorized to use military force in order to enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq. That's it.

Yes, that's what I have been saying all along. He was authorized to enforce all resolutions militarily, that's it. That is what the legislation that Bush asked for was intended to do, allow Bush to use the military in Iraq.

Which he in fact did.

And Hillary is on record as agreeing to it.

See, it's not that difficult.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14188626

Yes, that's what I have been saying all along. He was authorized to enforce all resolutions militarily, that's it. That is what the legislation that Bush asked for was intended to do, allow Bush to use the military in Iraq.

I see you can't answer a basic yes or no question. Bush did not enforce all resolutions militarily. Do you think kicking inspectors out and invading Iraq was enforcing all resolutions including 1441 militarily. Yes or no?

 

[easyt65]

Much like how they still look back and point fingers at a guy who hasn't been in office for almost a decade in order to find a reason to exonerate Obama if his failures, liberals keep living in the past with Iraq.

Right or wrong, the US went to war in Iraq, with the full approval of Congress, to include Democrats. The war was won: a tyrant was overthrown, and a nation was liberated. A withdrawl plan was created and begun.

The entire thing - the job of ensuring our effort was not wasted and the job of bringing our troops home were passed on to Obama. And he failed...

Obama allowed ISIS to freely enter Iraq without opposition, alliwing them to slaughter innocents while taking over territory liberate by US troops after much sacrifice.

Despite vowing NO COMBAT TROOPS would go back into / would remain in Iraq ('no boots on the ground'), Obama's failures forced him to send troops back into Iraq to REtake the country they had already liberated.

More American blood is on Obama's hands due to his incompetence / failure. As wird that an American SEAL member was killed by ISIS in Iraq we are reminded of this. That is why Obama and his supporters would rather live / dwell in the past rather than focus on what has gone on under Obama and what is going on now.

 

[easyt65]

As far as the UN goes, it has been proven time and again it is a scandal-plagued, useless organization.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14188626

He was authorized to enforce all resolutions militarily, that's it.

And since Bush did not enforce one single UNSC Resolution with regard to Iraq in order to invade Iraq Sen Clinton did not vote for his unauthorized invasion.

 

[Camp]

As far as the UN goes, it has been proven time and again it is a scandal-plagued, useless organization.

Are they more or less scandal-plagued and useless than the US Congress?

 

[Tehon]

Tehon 14188626

Yes, that's what I have been saying all along. He was authorized to enforce all resolutions militarily, that's it. That is what the legislation that Bush asked for was intended to do, allow Bush to use the military in Iraq.

I see you can't answer a basic yes or no question. Bush did not enforce all resolutions militarily. Do you think kicking inspectors out and invading Iraq was enforcing all resolutions including 1441 militarily. Yes or no?

Yes

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14188844

Tehon 14188626

Yes, that's what I have been saying all along. He was authorized to enforce all resolutions militarily, that's it. That
Yes

Based on what? Bush terminated UNSC Res 1441, so how was Bush enforcing a UNSC RESOLUTION when he invaded Iraq with total disregard for the UNSC's direction on enforcement.

 

[Tehon]

Based on what? Bush terminated UNSC Res 1441, so how was Bush enforcing a UNSC RESOLUTION when he invaded Iraq with total disregard for the UNSC's direction on enforcement.

Based on the fact that Bush invaded Iraq and disarmed Saddam Hussein. All the resolutions called for disarmament. He enforced all of the resolutions using military force when he invaded. With Hillary's blessings.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14188844

Yes

So you essentially agree with this right wing nutjob Bush Lover. Nice company you keep;

eastt65 14188648

Right or wrong, the US went to war in Iraq, with the full approval of Congress, to include Democrats.

Do you consider Bush to be in Charge of the entire United Nations?