Iraq War Vote

OP
Tehon

Tehon

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
8,938
Reaction score
1,236
Points
275
Bush acted on the authority granted by Congress.
Sure Bush acted but it was not per the language of conditions imposed in it. Because he is a liar. Nice of you to defend Bush by telling us he was not a liar.
There were no conditions imposed, if there were we would have legal recourse, we don't.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,278
Reaction score
1,144
Points
245
Tehon 14371282
There were no conditions imposed, if there were we would have legal recourse, we don't.
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?
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,278
Reaction score
1,144
Points
245
Tehon 14371272
Oh for crying out loud, 1441 did not exist when the AUMF was passed.
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?
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,278
Reaction score
1,144
Points
245
Tehon 14371272
Of course Bush should have gone back to the UN for approval but that was made unnecessary by the AUMF which protected him here in the US. Congress gave him the authority and he acted on it.
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?
 
OP
Tehon

Tehon

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
8,938
Reaction score
1,236
Points
275
Tehon 14371272
Of course Bush should have gone back to the UN for approval but that was made unnecessary by the AUMF which protected him here in the US. Congress gave him the authority and he acted on it.
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?
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,
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,278
Reaction score
1,144
Points
245
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.'

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.

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:
OP
Tehon

Tehon

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
8,938
Reaction score
1,236
Points
275
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.

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.
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:

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,278
Reaction score
1,144
Points
245
Tehon 14377466
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 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:

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,278
Reaction score
1,144
Points
245
Tehon 14377466
Of course I don't believe for a second that she, a lawyer and lawmaker, didn't understand the implications of her vote.
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?
 
OP
Tehon

Tehon

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
8,938
Reaction score
1,236
Points
275
Tehon 14377466
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 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 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 you uninformed unjustified hatred for Hillary Clinton.

You 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?
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.
 
OP
Tehon

Tehon

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
8,938
Reaction score
1,236
Points
275
Tehon 14377466
Of course I don't believe for a second that she, a lawyer and lawmaker, didn't understand the implications of her vote.
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?
If Senator Clinton was in on Bush's plan to lie peace and ignite war, why is that UNSC specific condition even there?

There is no condition placed on the authorization. It is a basic fact.

condition
n. a term or requirement stated in a contract, which must be met for the other party to have the duty to fulfill his/her obligations
condition

Where does it state in the AUMF that the president must do something to retain the authorization and if he doesn't comply he will lose it?
 
Last edited:

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,278
Reaction score
1,144
Points
245
Where does it state in the AUMF that the president must do something to retain the authorization and if he doesn't comply he will lose it?

It's in the clause that you and I have posted a zillion times. Congress authorized the use of military force to do two things and two things only. One of which was 'in order to" enforce "all" relevant UNSC resolutions with regard to Iraq.

That is a definite condition.

Bush was not authorized to use military force "in order to" enforce the world's just demands.

Bush was not authorized to use military force 'in order to' change the regime and establish an Islamic democracy in Iraq.

The lawmakers did not set that condition. It was not authorized to use military force to do what Bush did?
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,278
Reaction score
1,144
Points
245
Tehon 14378005
Where does it state in the AUMF that the president must do something to retain the authorization and if he doesn't comply he will lose it?
Just because Bush did not comply with the 'in order to" conditions set in the AUMF did not mean that Congress had the political will to end it.

You are just reiterating that Bush was right when he told you he was enforcing the world's demands, not UNSC demands.

I would never go there. Bush was wrong to believe he had authorization to do what he ended up doing. You appear to be relishing in being there with him.

An entire other part of the whole story is that Bush could have invaded Iraq under the war powers act and the War on Terror Act passed after 9/11/01 without giving peaceful inspections a try.

He kicked peaceful inspectors out when they made much headway - So it was not far fetched at the time to believe Bush would indeed start a war without a specific Iraq AUMF.
 
OP
Tehon

Tehon

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
8,938
Reaction score
1,236
Points
275
Tehon 14378005
Where does it state in the AUMF that the president must do something to retain the authorization and if he doesn't comply he will lose it?
Just because Bush did not comply with the 'in order to" conditions set in the AUMF did not mean that Congress had the political will to end it.

You are just reiterating that Bush was right when he told you he was enforcing the world's demands, not UNSC demands.

I would never go there. Bush was wrong to believe he had authorization to do what he ended up doing. You appear to be relishing in being there with him.

An entire other part of the whole story is that Bush could have invaded Iraq under the war powers act and the War on Terror Act passed after 9/11/01 without giving peaceful inspections a try.

He kicked peaceful inspectors out when they made much headway - So it was not far fetched at the time to believe Bush would indeed start a war without a specific Iraq AUMF.
Just because Bush did not comply with the 'in order to" conditions set in the AUMF did not mean that Congress had the political will to end it.

Congress couldn't end it because there were no conditions set to end it. They would have had to write new legislation and have it signed by the president to end it.

You don't understand what a condition is. It's been real but I'm done, I might as well be talking to a wall.
 
Last edited:

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,278
Reaction score
1,144
Points
245
Tehon 14250190
It was plainly evident at the time the vote was taken that Bush intended to use the military to disarm Sadam Hussein of his non existent WMD.
What was plainly evident in October 2002 is what Bush expressed by word and deed. His intent was to allow the UN to disarm Iraq peacefully if stronger inspections were to be resumed.


NFBW 14250436
And it was not clear that WMD were non- existent in October 2002 because there were no UN inspectors on the ground that Saddam. Hussein enabled to verify the existence of WMD or not.

You are projecting what became later known and much clearer starting around January 2003 with the new round of inspections underway on to the Congress members four months earlier.

You are claiming to know with certainty in October 2002 from the couch in your living room 7,000 miles away what the UNSC inspection teams did not know for certain at all.

This is just more fallacy in your argument that must be exposed.
You have never explained how you knew with certainty in October 2002 from the couch in your living room 7,000 miles away what the UNSC inspection teams coming later did not know for certain at all.

Please explain how and why you knew back in October 2002 so much more about Iraq's WMD than UN inspectors knew.



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.'
Why did you say Bush was militarily enforcing all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq from one side of your mouth and then from the other side admit that Bush did not seek authorization for war from the UNSC?
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,278
Reaction score
1,144
Points
245
You don't understand what a condition is. It's been real but I'm done, I might as well be talking to a wall.
So you are running away because you can't explain why 'in order to' is not a condition. Run dude. Your absurd views and self/claimed clairvoyance are duly noted.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,278
Reaction score
1,144
Points
245
Tehon 14380750
Congress couldn't end it because there were no conditions set to end it. They would have had to write new legislation and have it signed by the president to end it.
More phony nonsense. Congress could have ended it after 90 days at any time by cutting off funding. There was no political will in a Republican controlled House to cut off funding.

Doesn't mean 'in order to' was not a condition in the AUMF.

So run if you must.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top