Iraq War Vote

[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.

 

[Freewill]

She was tricked by the stupidest president ever.

 

[Tehon]

She was tricked by the stupidest president ever.

That is the essence of NotfooledbyW argument.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

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.

i already said it was a vote for war many times if UN inspections were not resumed.

The something is is the history that preceded and followed her vote?

You ignore the language in the AUMF that says Bush was authorized to use military force in
order to enforce all UNSC resolutions. Bush did not. And the language about support for enforcing through a new Round of inspections.

And your position that terminating Res 1441 and choosing war over inspections was in fact Bush' legitimate way of enforcing 1441 is so absurd there is nothing to debate there,

Since I've agreed that her vote was in fact a vote for war with a preference for a peaceful alternative as Bush had declared himself to prefer, and the language in the AUMF restricted Bush very clearly to using military force in order to enforce ALL relevant UNSC Resolutions, which he was not doing when he used military force in March 2003, it is obvious you still don't know what we have been discussing.

And furthermore you have not made a case for why and how you believe that Bush's termination of UN Res 1441 and the long sought peaceful enforcement of all Resolutions regarding Iraw was what the AUMF meant when it was giving Bush the authority to use force prior to those inspections.

You can first explain how terminating UN inspections to start a war was enforcing what the UNSC wanted to be done.

You can do that here.

Moving my arguments somewhere else accomplishes nothing that cannot be accomplished here.

So explain your absurd belief that terminating UN inspections to start a war was enforcing what the UNSC wanted to be done. And how you know HRC wanted Bush to terminate those inspections and start a war when she is quoted before the decision was made to prefer continuation of those inspections.

I will ask you to do that no matter where it is?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

She was tricked by the stupidest president ever.

That is the essence of NotfooledbyW argument.

She was tricked by the stupidest president ever.

That is the essence of NotfooledbyW argument.

So you start by lying about the essence of my argument. She was not tricked because the AUMF gave Bush the authority to use force in order to enforce UNSC resolutions. Bush was not enforcing anything to do with the UN when he invaded Iraq. You have not produced one iota of evidence that Bush was enforcing what the majority on the Security Council wanted done when he terminated inspections to start a war.

You cannot hold Clinton responsible for Bush's decision not to enforce 1441. Bush went beyond what she voted for. She was not tricked. You are apparently tricked into believing Bush.

 

[there4eyeM]

Congress did not vote to declare war.
According to international law, the U.S. invasion was illegal. How any 'honest lawyer' could vote for it is impossible to understand.
That only leaves one alternative.

 

[Tehon]

I will ask you to do that no matter where it is?

Does that mean you accept the challenge or not?

I already said you can define your argument. This is only the call out forum if you accept we will define the rules and then move to the main forum where our cases can be weighed in on by some objective observers.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

No you defined the essence of my argument and it shows you are ignorant about what it is.

No you need to explain why you believe Bush was enforcing Res 1441 by terminating the 1441 ongoing peaceful inspections. Explain it on the original thread. If you have no rational back up for such an absurd belief there is no reason to debate.

The language in the AUMF rules the day not your absurdity.

 

[Freewill]

Congress did not vote to declare war.
According to international law, the U.S. invasion was illegal. How any 'honest lawyer' could vote for it is impossible to understand.
That only leaves one alternative.

When are charges going to be filed? Isn't that the excuse for Mrs. Tuzla Clinton? No charges, no foul?

If they are going to say Iraq was illegal, then how was Serbia legal? Libya? Syria and now Yemen? How is our whole predator drone program legal?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Tehon 14197347

She was tricked by the stupidest president ever.

That is the essence of NotfooledbyW argument.

NFBW 14195722

Just admit that Hillary is a war mongering ***** who has a special place in hell reserved right next to Bush.

Why should I admit such an ignorance based smear? Both Clintons favored continued inspections over war. The inspections you consider irrelevant prior to Bush's invasion to disarm Iraq of WMD that were not there.

Bush started the war on March 20. Had he consulted either Clinton he would have been told that continuing inspections was preferable to war.



Clinton Splits With Bush on Iraq," The Washington Post March 13, 2003
"Former president Bill Clinton, who has generally supported the Bush administration's Iraq policy in recent remarks, called on his successor yesterday to accept a more relaxed timeline in exchange for support from a majority of the United Nations Security Council members. ..[T]he former president has publicly espoused an approach substantially different from the administration's public stance."

"Deadline for war - Give the inspectors more time, urges Clinton" The Daily Telegraph March 13, 2003 "Bill Clinton yesterday urged the Bush administration to give Hans Blix as much time as he wants to complete weapons inspections in Iraq. The former president broke ranks with his successor...Mr Clinton said war might yet be avoided if Saddam Hussein were given more time to disarm. "

"Clinton recommends U.S. patience on Iraq,"Reuters, February 11, 2003. "Former U.S. President Bill Clinton said in an interview broadcast on Tuesday the United States should exercise patience in its standoff with Iraq to help build allied support for a potential strike."

The same was expressed by Senator Clinton.

"Hillary Clinton tells Irish TV she is against war with Iraq," Irish Times, February 8, 2003

"Hillary Clinton prefers 'peaceful solution' in Iraq," Associated Press March 3, 2003
"[Clinton said the US] should continue its attempts to build an international alliance rather than going to war quickly with Iraq...inspection is preferable to war, if it works, the New York Democrat said

True or False? Bush started the war on March 20. Had he consulted either Clinton he would have been told that continuing inspections was preferable to war.

I say True.


"Hillary Clinton prefers 'peaceful solution' in Iraq," Associated Press March 3, 2003
"[Clinton said the US] should continue its attempts to build an international alliance rather than going to war quickly with Iraq...inspection is preferable to war, if it works, the New York Democrat said.




You say:


Tehon 14193502

Just admit that Hillary is a war mongering ***** who has a special place in hell reserved right next to Bush.

Go find people who aren't Bush and Iraq Invasion and Bernie Sanders supporters who agree with you on that.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

14199187 Freewill

How is our whole predator drone program legal?

There is a principle as part of international law called the inherent right to self defense. That inherent right is ours going back to an attack on American soil by a global terrorist organization on September 11, 2001.

Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on September 11, 2001 until the terrorists moved into Iraq and Syria following the fall of the Baathist regime in Iraq in 2003.

That was Bush's error - leaving a void for terrorists to fill and joined by former Saddam loyalists that joined with terrorists and contributed to what is now referred to as ISIS.

If manned or unmanned coalition aircraft and Russian aircraft strike terrorists in war zones the more the merrier don't you think Freewill?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Tehon 14196994

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.

.

Tehon 14179020

There is no qualification to giving the President authorization. That is why it is not a condition.







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

And then the justification is given as to why Congress

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.

There is no requirement or any framework built to set up a condition. It is a simple justification.

Sure there is. You are blind to it. You are blind to in order to:

What you posted is definitely a condition because it is one statement to be read as this:

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.


What do you think 'in order to' actually means here?

it means quite clearly that Bush was being authorized to use military force against Iraq for two reasons, conditions, stipulations and no others.

Your interpretation falsely allows Bush to use military force against Iraq for any reason or justification that he determines necessary and appropriate bearing no responsibility or requirement or condition that he enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Why is condition (2) in the document if is not stipulating exactly what military force is potentially being authorized for?

Your interpretation makes no sense at all.

It does not take a college degree to know that Bush did not invade Iraq
in order to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. That makes it also very apparent that Bush was not authorized by this document to use military force against Iraq when the authorization is read correctly.

That means Hillary did not receive from Bush what she voted for. She cannot be held responsible for Bush's deviation from this document.

You have been so focused on Hillary's vote that you missed the violation and misuse of this document that Bush committed right before your very eyes.

It is called being fooled by Dubya. It is tragic that you are.

No judges needed:

This language is contained in the October AUMF that was passed in October 2002.

True or False?

T he 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 Sec


I say True. What do you seeTehon.

 

[Tehon]

What do you seeTehon.

I see a petulant child.

This sub forum is for issuing challenges. I challenged you to the bullring and you declined. I don't take issue with that but as such the usefulness of this thread has expired.

This thread can now be closed.

 

[Freewill]

14199187 Freewill

How is our whole predator drone program legal?

There is a principle as part of international law called the inherent right to self defense. That inherent right is ours going back to an attack on American soil by a global terrorist organization on September 11, 2001.

Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on September 11, 2001 until the terrorists moved into Iraq and Syria following the fall of the Baathist regime in Iraq in 2003.

That was Bush's error - leaving a void for terrorists to fill and joined by former Saddam loyalists that joined with terrorists and contributed to what is now referred to as ISIS.

If manned or unmanned coalition aircraft and Russian aircraft strike terrorists in war zones the more the merrier don't you think Freewill?

Only problem is, this isn't true.

ISIS did get it start in Iraq but could find a foothold. It took the power vacuum created in Syria and the arms provided by the Obama administration for ISIS to be unleashed on the world.

Never the less you didn't answer the question. If Iraq was illegal why isn't bombing brown folks in ally countries?

Here is a good article on US policy and the rise of ISIS;

http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

 

[whutTHEYsay]

What do you seeTehon.

I see a petulant child.

This sub forum is for issuing challenges. I challenged you to the bullring and you declined. I don't take issue with that but as such the usefulness of this thread has expired.

This thread can now be closed.

I'll take it back to the original thread then. You can answer it there. These questions do not require a judge to decide if true or not.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

14199187 Freewill

How is our whole predator drone program legal?

There is a principle as part of international law called the inherent right to self defense. That inherent right is ours going back to an attack on American soil by a global terrorist organization on September 11, 2001.

Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on September 11, 2001 until the terrorists moved into Iraq and Syria following the fall of the Baathist regime in Iraq in 2003.

That was Bush's error - leaving a void for terrorists to fill and joined by former Saddam loyalists that joined with terrorists and contributed to what is now referred to as ISIS.

If manned or unmanned coalition aircraft and Russian aircraft strike terrorists in war zones the more the merrier don't you think Freewill?

Only problem is, this isn't true.

ISIS did get it start in Iraq but could find a foothold. It took the power vacuum created in Syria and the arms provided by the Obama administration for ISIS to be unleashed on the world.

Never the less you didn't answer the question. If Iraq was illegal why isn't bombing brown folks in ally countries?

Here is a good article on US policy and the rise of ISIS;

http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

Wall of words.

From your link:

1997, a U.S. Department of Defense report stated, “the data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in terrorist attacks against the U.S.” Truth is, the only way America can win the “War On Terror” is if it stops giving terrorists the motivation and the resources to attack America. Terrorism is the symptom; American imperialism in the Middle East is the cancer. Put simply, the War on Terror is terrorism; only, it is conducted on a much larger scale by people with jets and missiles.

Garikai Chengu is a research scholar at Harvard University. Contact him on garikai.chengu@gmail.com


It's blame the victim of the 09/11/01 attack.


Anti Anerican Scam journalists make up this site.

.
Yes, Churchill was a bit of a snob towards the superiority of Britons — but judging him by that today’s standards is a fallacy called Presentism. Churchill’s contemporaries, both in the countries he was talking about, his own (his allies and opposition), and abroad (like FDR) were often far worse than he was. That doesn’t mean you have to like Churchill either, but have just a little respect for the balances. You can’t rip quotes out of Historical context, not offer any balances, and pretend to be objective.

So I was curious about this sham journalist, and quickly found he was an African anti-Imperialist activist, with an axe to grind and willingness to distort history to do so. And I don’t mean he’s African (he is)… I mean he’s an activist on African (and middle eastern) issues, that detests the west, and is willing to propagandize for his agenda. So if you want Obama’s Dad’s view of the world, you can turn to folks like this, to give you a conspiracy theorists, anti-Western/anti-White view of anything. It’s about as fair as the KKK’s writings on the local bar mitzvah, but hey, even the hyper-partisan are entitled to their opinions. We should just understand the biases of the authors when reading them.

A quick scan found other equally absurd half-truths, such as:

• http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881
• America’s slide from Democracy to Corporatocracy
• West to rake in billions from Libyan war

It was no wonder that he does Zimbabwe focused research for Columbia University’s Institute for African Studies, Stanford University’s Centre for African Studies and Harvard University’s W.E.B Du Bois institute for African and African American Studies — he’s anti-America, biased, misrepresents things though an anti-Western lens. What else could you ask for in a researcher from these esteemed (but hyper-partisan) Universities?

• https://garikaichengu.wordpress.com

The guy is proudly modelling a Robert Mugabe T-Shirt (he was a supporter of), to let you know where his allegniences lie: with a corrupt one-party rule "democracy’, using a security force trained by the North Koreans. A leader that was racist against whites, runs one of the most corrupt nations in the world (163rd out of 176 countries), and was oppressive, and lead to the countries economic free-fall (according to the Economist). But he’s an anti-imperialist, with a predilection to distort things for his ends, and that’s what I suspect Garikai likes about him.

Well, at least I now know the name: Garikai Chengu, completely biased activists, who is a misrepresenting polemicist that deals in half truths. He is to Journalism and History what Thomas Piketty or Paul Krugman is for economics, and probably proud of it.

http://igeek.com/1471

What did I write that are lies? Could you be specific and in your own words?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Never the less you didn't answer the question. If Iraq was illegal why isn't bombing brown folks in ally countries?

We are not bombing brown 'folks'- we are booming terrorists - that is what makes it illegal. We are developing and assisting local 'folks' to kill a f destroy ISIS and keep them from returning.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

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.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?