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

[NotfooledbyW]

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

That is not a fact. That is an absolutely false conclusion. Bush terminated UNSC resolution 1440 making UNSC enforcement impossible. By terminating 1441 Bush made UN enforcement of all preceding UNSC RESOLUTIONS impossible.

Bush's invasion was not in accordance with any UNSC action or Resolution. Do you have something from the UN to back your foolhardy belief?

 

[easyt65]

Not, your silly diversionary question is duly noted...and ignored Bush took the country to war with the full authorization, and encouragement, of Congress, to include Democrats...as opposed to Obama, who has - on his own, bypassing Congress to do so - dragged the US into the middle of 2 civil wars between terrorists and dictators...to help the terrorists.

Deal with it. Get over it. Embrace it.

 

[Tehon]

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

I agree with the facts. You should try it.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Except that NotFooled is correct and you're splitting hairs. Hillary supported following the UN resolutions, as the Congressional Authorization stated and Bush did not follow them.

I also remember Bush telling the American people that those who did not stand with the President in the defence of the nation, was aiding and abetting the terrorists.

I remember the vilification of France for refusing to participate in the Iraq war.

Bush used the world's sympathy for the US after 9-11 to push his agenda with the UN, over the objections (as we learned later) of Colin Powell, who urged W's father not to take out Saddam as it would destabilize the region.

 

[Dragonlady]

Not, your silly diversionary question is duly noted...and ignored Bush took the country to war with the full authorization, and encouragement, of Congress, to include Democrats...as opposed to Obama, who has - on his own, bypassing Congress to do so - dragged the US into the middle of 2 civil wars between terrorists and dictators...to help the terrorists.

Deal with it. Get over it. Embrace it.

Bush went to war with the qualified condition of Congress, which included some, but most definitely not all Democrats. The Democrats who voted against the war were considered traitors to the nation at the time.

You Bush-nuts seem to forget that W had the nation in a near frenzy to go to war. Protesters were vilified, and protests were reported on MSM as being 1000 or so protesters were actually closer to 20,000 protesters, according to reports in the foreign press.

No dissenting voices were allowed. I remember having a heated discussion with a longtime American friend who is quite left of centre, who assured me that Saddam was harbouring Bin Laden, and he had weapons of mass destruction he was preparing to unleash on Israel. It was all over the media.

I told my friend that Bush was lying. That he was giving a new generation of Middle Eastern youth good and valid reasons to hate the USA and that the damage done would last generations. He would have none of it. Later he apologized to me and said I was right about everything.

That was the nation's mood when Congress gave their qualified approval of the use of force. And Bush threw out the UN inspectors, disregarded their reports, and vilified those who opposed him.

 

[easyt65]

B...b...but Bush!

Liberals lime Kerry, Bill Clinton, and others made the case for why we HAD to go to war, why Hussein HAD to be overthrown, and they readily voted to give Bush the authorization to go to war. PERIOD! It's a documented fact, so stop whining about it and trying to re-write history now. It IS HISTORY.

Join us in the 'present', where Obama has sent combat troops back into Iraq...AGAIN...because he allowed terrorists to freely flow into Iraq and beging taking territory already libetsted once by our molitary at a hogh cost. Let's talk about the Americans still gighting and dying there because of his fecisions and his failures.

Let's talk about 4 dead Americans, sacrificed so tbat a (false) re-election campaign vow - war on terror over / Al Qaeida on the run - would not be exposed as a lie.

You don't like how Bush took the country to war WITH Congressional approval? Then let's talk about how Obama is responsible for 2 on his own WITHOUT getting Congressional approval.

No need to go bsck decades to have such a discussion. We are still gighting and losing Americans in OBAMA'S Iraq war, lost Americans as a result of OBAMA'S Libyan wat, and helped the rise of ISIS because of OBAMA'S Syrian proxy war...

 

[Tehon]

Except that NotFooled is correct and you're splitting hairs. Hillary supported following the UN resolutions, as the Congressional Authorization stated and Bush did not follow them.

Why would anyone that supported following UN resolutions vote to give the President unconditional approval to use the military? There was no threat. Hussein had already agreed to let the inspectors back in. There was no reason to give Bush authorization, the UN resolutions would have played out on there own.
It's not splitting hairs. Appeals to supporting UN resolutions in legislation written for the sole purpose of allowing the President to use military force is completely disingenuous.

 

[Tehon]

Bush's invasion was not in accordance with any UNSC action or Resolution. Do you have something from the UN to back your foolhardy belief?

I didn't say the invasion was in accordance with the UN. I said that Bush enforced relevant resolutions pertaining to disarming Iraq. That is what Congress authorized him to do. He did it.

 

[Tehon]

Hillary voted nay on a Carl Levin amendment that would authorize Bush to use force only pursuant to a UN resolution calling for force.

To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council, to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, long-range ballistic missiles, and related facilities, and for other purposes.

Clinton (D-NY), Nay

U.S. Senate: Roll Call Vote

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon

. Based on the fact that Bush invaded Iraq and disarmed Saddam Hussein.

Now you are living in pure right wing fantasy land. Bush did not disarm Saddam Hussein. There were no WMD there. How could you not know that?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14192104

I didn't say the invasion was in accordance with the UN. I said that Bush enforced relevant resolutions pertaining to disarming Iraq. That is what Congress authorized him to do. He did it.

How does a U.S. president enforce a UN Resolution that called for continued peaceful disarmament through an enhanced Inspection regime that was succeeding in disarming Iraq peacefully? Bush terminated that UN Resolution he could have in no way enforced it by starting a war.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14192104

I didn't say the invasion was in accordance with the UN. I said that Bush enforced relevant resolutions pertaining to disarming Iraq.

Then show me the relevant UNSC Resolution that called for regime change by massive air and ground invasion. You can't show me one.

So you have a Bush enforcing a UNSC Resolution that does not exist.

The AUMF for which Senator Clinton voted does not direct Bush to enforce a UN Resolution that did not exist and never really had a chance to ever exist after 1441 with US approval was implemented.

 

[Tehon]

Tehon

. Based on the fact that Bush invaded Iraq and disarmed Saddam Hussein.

Now you are living in pure right wing fantasy land. Bush did not disarm Saddam Hussein. There were no WMD there. How could you not know that?

You are missing the point. That they didn't find weapons after the invasion is irrelevant to what took place leading up to the invasion.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14192104

I didn't say the invasion was in accordance with the UN.

I didn't say you did. What you are saying is much more absurd. You are saying that Bush enforced UNSC Resolution 1441 which gave Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to comply in order to avoid military action if SH cooperated with a new regime of UN inspectors. You are saying Bush enforced a timely and active resolution which brought about ongoing peaceful inspections by dispersing the peaceful inspections and starting a war.

You've been backed into a corner and all you can come up with is absurdity piled upon absurdity.

Enforcing peaceful ongoing UN inspections by starting a war instead. What an absurdity.

 

[Tehon]

Then show me the relevant UNSC Resolution that called for regime change by massive air and ground invasion. You can't show me one.

So you have a Bush enforcing a UNSC Resolution that does not exist.

The AUMF for which Senator Clinton voted does not direct Bush to enforce a UN Resolution that did not exist and never really had a chance to ever exist after 1441 with US approval was implemented.

You have me all wrong if you think I'm here to defend Bush. The simple fact of the matter is that congress authorized Bush to use force at his own discretion with no strings attached. They gave Bush a green light and he ran with it. Just admit that Hillary is a war mongering bitch who has a special place in hell reserved right next to Bush.

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,

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You are missing the point. That they didn't find weapons after the invasion is irrelevant to what took place leading up to the invasion.

Were the inspections that were taking place prior to the invasion irrelevant? You gave credit to Bush for disarming Iraq through war. I credit the UNSC for disarming Iraq peacefully while actually ENFORCING UNSC Resolution 1441. You know , the Resolution that Bush terminated. The Resolution that Bush terminated and you consider that to be Bush enforcing it.

The AUMF did not direct Bush to terminate all UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq because inspections were succeeding in disarming Iraq. He was told to enforce them. He did the opposite, but you believe Bush disarmed Iraq. I get your point. It is absurd.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14193502

The simple fact of the matter is that congress authorized Bush to use force at his own discretion with no strings attached

You have already admitted there were strings attached.

You've gone back to ignoring the language in the AUMF that is followed by the three words 'in order to'.

Bush was not authorized use military force against Iraq if it was not part of enforcing ALL relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq. And that includes 1441.

The Council members through 1441 called for continued inspections. Did Bush support continued inspections to disarm Iraq?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14188626

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.

Bush was authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States in order to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Now your defense of Bush is he did in fact use the U.S. military in order to enforce All UNSC Resolutions in order to disarm Iraq. However you cannot deny Bush chose to use the U.S. Military against Iraq at a point in time when the use of military force was not necessary and more importantly not authorized as a matter of enforcing UNSC Resolution 1441 in order to disarm Iraq. It was not necessary because the UNSC was satisfied that Iraq was being disarmed peacefully and in cooperation with Iraq in an unprecedented chain of events and actions.

Your venture into absurdity is all to defend your assumption that you know Senator Clinton's intent when she voted to support the AUMF that also contains this language:

NFBW 14188121

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.

Your argument is that you know somehow that Senator Clinton did not support the efforts by Bush to strictly enforce through the UNSC all relevant SC resolutions regarding Iraq and encourage him in those efforts to 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 comply with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

It is a fact that Bush did obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council and that was Res 1441.

So your twisted and baseless assault on Senator Clinton's character and judgment presumes that her vote was absolutely a desire for war and she faked support for a diplomatic solution through the UN, because she knew in advance that Bush would get very successful inspections and then terminate them when they were succeeding so her and Dubya could high five each other for tricking America into invading Iraq so Dick Cheney's Halliburton could make a billion dollars while U.S. Troops and Iraq's people bled all over the place and the U.S. Treasury was drained for no good reason.

That is your argument. It makes no sense.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14188626

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.

Bush was authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States in order to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Now your defense of Bush is he did in fact use the U.S. military in order to enforce All UNSC Resolutions in order to disarm Iraq. However you cannot deny Bush chose to use the U.S. Military against Iraq at a point in time when the use of military force was not necessary and more importantly not authorized as a matter of enforcing UNSC Resolution 1441 in order to disarm Iraq. It was not necessary because the UNSC was satisfied that Iraq was being disarmed peacefully and in cooperation with Iraq in an unprecedented chain of events and actions.

Your venture into absurdity is all to defend your assumption that you know Senator Clinton's intent when she voted to support the AUMF that also contains this language:

NFBW 14188121

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.

Your argument is that you know somehow that Senator Clinton did not support the efforts by Bush to strictly enforce through the UNSC all relevant SC resolutions regarding Iraq and encourage him in those efforts to 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 comply with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

It is a fact that Bush did obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council and that was Res 1441.

So your twisted and baseless assault on Senator Clinton's character and judgment presumes that her vote was absolutely a desire for war and she faked support for a diplomatic solution through the UN, because she knew in advance that Bush would get very successful inspections and then terminate them when they were succeeding so her and Dubya could high five each other for tricking America into invading Iraq so Dick Cheney's Halliburton could make a billion dollars while U.S. Troops and Iraq's people bled all over the place and the U.S. Treasury was drained for no good reason.

That is your argument. It makes no sense.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14193502

They gave Bush a green light and he ran with it.

That is a false statement. You will write anything based on nothing resembling the facts and the truth and common sense. A green light is authority to go. A green light for war would not bothered to slow down and take a detour through the diplomatic route that worked.

You think Clinton was in on the ruse that Bush declared his first choice was diplomacy to avoid war but it was all a lie.

That is demented.