So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[Boss]

Too ******* stupid. Bush had no voice in the U.N. resolution? Are you ******* nuts (rhetorical)? Don't you know the U.S. is a permanent member of the U.N. (one of only five)?

The U.S., in fact, was one of the primary authors of U.N. resolution 1441. You truly have no ******* clue of that about which you speak. It's beyond evident.

Bush was the President of the United States, not the UN Ambassador.

...The **** are you talking about, fool?

What I'm talking about is that you're ******* baked. I didn't say Bush was the ambassador to the U.N.. I said the U.S. was a primary author of the resolution. And as president of said nation, Bush had a voice AND authority of what went into 1441. You display for all to see just how divorced from reality you really are.

Here's what you said:
the October 2002 AUMF was passed one month before UNSC 1441 was passed by the UNSC with language that was accepted by Bush.

My argument is quite simple. George W. Bush was not involved in the language of a UN resolution. They never asked him if he accepted it and didn't need to. The US Ambassador to the UN accepted it, but he is not George W. Bush.

Bush accepted that the UN had passed one final resolution to attempt a diplomatic resolve on Iraq and he agreed to allow this with the understanding that if Saddam failed to comply in any way, the consequences would be serious.

You seem to think Bush was somehow obligated to allow the UN to drag things out and continue diplomacy indefinitely and Bush never said he agreed to that. He sought and received an AUMF from his Congress and gave Saddam one last chance to work with the international community. Saddam failed to comply and Bush acted as he promised he would.

 

[Boss]

The people who ruled that there was no evidence any of this was lies, were politicians connected to the powers that be...

No they weren't. There were several independent hearings in the US and UK following the war.

Wow... you people are amazing! You keep flailing away at thin air, not connecting any punches... yet you somehow think you're winning! I keep clocking your asses and you keep stumbling back to the middle of the ring for more. You've been reduced to muttering nonsense about my improper usage of verbs and such... in stunned disbelief that you're being pummeled.

Keep in mind that the U.S. and the UK were the two strongest leaders of the invasion. Why would they allow independent investigations to subvert their war? Regarding my being "pummeled," I didn't realize we were in a war with this dialogue. I thought we were exploring ideas. Silly me.

Look... It's a real easy claim to make that hearings and investigations are corrupted by outside influence and then use that as a basis to deny their findings. If such claims are allowed to be made without any basis or evidence, then there is really not any point in ever having hearings or investigations because it can all be rendered fraudulent by accusation alone.

What you need to have is some kind of evidence to support your allegation. You've not presented anything other than your opinion that bipartisan members of numerous hearings were all corrupted by outside influence sympathetic to Bush and Blair. Frankly, I find that quite moronic.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

The people who ruled that there was no evidence any of this was lies, were politicians connected to the powers that be...

No they weren't. There were several independent hearings in the US and UK following the war.

Wow... you people are amazing! You keep flailing away at thin air, not connecting any punches... yet you somehow think you're winning! I keep clocking your asses and you keep stumbling back to the middle of the ring for more. You've been reduced to muttering nonsense about my improper usage of verbs and such... in stunned disbelief that you're being pummeled.

Keep in mind that the U.S. and the UK were the two strongest leaders of the invasion. Why would they allow independent investigations to subvert their war? Regarding my being "pummeled," I didn't realize we were in a war with this dialogue. I thought we were exploring ideas. Silly me.

Look... It's a real easy claim to make that hearings and investigations are corrupted by outside influence and then use that as a basis to deny their findings. If such claims are allowed to be made without any basis or evidence, then there is really not any point in ever having hearings or investigations because it can all be rendered fraudulent by accusation alone.

What you need to have is some kind of evidence to support your allegation. You've not presented anything other than your opinion that bipartisan members of numerous hearings were all corrupted by outside influence sympathetic to Bush and Blair. Frankly, I find that quite moronic.

Have you ever heard of the Bush Doctrine Hoss?

It that the U.S. Will strike before a threat can become imminent. That is what Bush43 did to Iraq.

Iraq is Bush's war. The very first time the Bush Doctrine was carried out. There was no imminent threat from Iraq in 2003.

The threat of WMD potential in the future was by most of the sane people of the world was the correct doctrine.

It's not called the Hillary Doctrine or the Kerry Doctrine. Those Senators wanted no part of it.

Iraq is entirely Bush's war where Afghanistan was the entire country's war. The doctrine fir going into Afghanistan is based on international law. The inherent right to self defense after or before an attack.

 

[Faun]

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

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

Exactly why it was Bush's war. Thank you for that tacit concession.

Not really. It was Saddam's War.

Nope. You don't get to change your position after you admitted Bush was put in the position of deciding if there would be a war or not; just because it's inconvenient for your lunacy.

Bush was the 'decider.' He decided to go to war. The Iraq war will always be us's war.

Even worse for you is the reality that Bush's war was a miserable failure. How do we know that? Because YOU would be insisting it was Bush's war had it been a success.

I haven't changed my position. You tried to make my position different and I didn't allow that. It was not Bush's war. All Saddam ever had to do was comply with UN1441 and there would have been no invasion. Saddam failed to do that and Bush fulfilled his promise.

The war WAS a success... despite the massive efforts of people like you and radical Islam to mess it up. In terms of casualties, we had lower loss of life than any war of that length that we've ever fought. We defeated the enemy army within a couple of weeks and brought the tyrant leader to justice. From that point, we dealt with radical terror insurgents who infiltrated Iraq from abroad... at the time, you were whining that we were killing Iraqi innocents. To this day, you still throw out casualty numbers as if we were killing Iraqis and not insurgent terrorists. Most of the formal Iraqi Army surrendered to US forces without confrontation.

Now whether the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act plans for democracy are going to work out in Iraq, that remains to be seen. But again, that was not Bush's idea, that was official US law passed two years before he was president.

Of course you changed your position. Show the post where you typed, "it was Saddam's war," before....

Regardless, you admitted Bush decided to go to war. You can deny it was Bush's war all you want -- it became Bush's war when he decided you go to war; over WMD and WMD programs which weren't there, no less.

Which takes us to your next idiocy that the war was a success.... more nonsense from a baked poster. The main reason for the war was WMD and WMD program which weren't there. How the **** does your brain translate an invasion over a failed reason into a success? Also a rhetorical question, btw. You're a conservative. That means you're dead from the neck up. THAT is the answer to my rhetorical question. You're not even capable of comprehending that the U.S. was the only country to use chemical weapons in that war.[/I]

 

[Faun]

Too ******* stupid. Bush had no voice in the U.N. resolution? Are you ******* nuts (rhetorical)? Don't you know the U.S. is a permanent member of the U.N. (one of only five)?

The U.S., in fact, was one of the primary authors of U.N. resolution 1441. You truly have no ******* clue of that about which you speak. It's beyond evident.

Bush was the President of the United States, not the UN Ambassador.

...The **** are you talking about, fool?

What I'm talking about is that you're ******* baked. I didn't say Bush was the ambassador to the U.N.. I said the U.S. was a primary author of the resolution. And as president of said nation, Bush had a voice AND authority of what went into 1441. You display for all to see just how divorced from reality you really are.

Here's what you said:
the October 2002 AUMF was passed one month before UNSC 1441 was passed by the UNSC with language that was accepted by Bush.

My argument is quite simple. George W. Bush was not involved in the language of a UN resolution. They never asked him if he accepted it and didn't need to. The US Ambassador to the UN accepted it, but he is not George W. Bush.

Bush accepted that the UN had passed one final resolution to attempt a diplomatic resolve on Iraq and he agreed to allow this with the understanding that if Saddam failed to comply in any way, the consequences would be serious.

You seem to think Bush was somehow obligated to allow the UN to drag things out and continue diplomacy indefinitely and Bush never said he agreed to that. He sought and received an AUMF from his Congress and gave Saddam one last chance to work with the international community. Saddam failed to comply and Bush acted as he promised he would.

You're a ******* retard.

You didn't say Bush wasn't involved. You said he had no authority over what went in it. Now you're changing your position from Bush had no authority over it to Bush wasn't involved after it was pointed out to you that the resolution was drafted by the U.S. and the U.K.; and since you have no character to simply admit when you're wrong, you double down on stupid.

And of course the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. accepted it -- we ******* wrote it, ya dumbfuck. That you think Bush had no authority over what went in it is retarded. But then, you are retarded. That you think he had no voice in what went in it is retarded. But then, you are retarded.

 

[Boss]

Too ******* stupid. Bush had no voice in the U.N. resolution? Are you ******* nuts (rhetorical)? Don't you know the U.S. is a permanent member of the U.N. (one of only five)?

The U.S., in fact, was one of the primary authors of U.N. resolution 1441. You truly have no ******* clue of that about which you speak. It's beyond evident.

Bush was the President of the United States, not the UN Ambassador.

...The **** are you talking about, fool?

What I'm talking about is that you're ******* baked. I didn't say Bush was the ambassador to the U.N.. I said the U.S. was a primary author of the resolution. And as president of said nation, Bush had a voice AND authority of what went into 1441. You display for all to see just how divorced from reality you really are.

Here's what you said:
the October 2002 AUMF was passed one month before UNSC 1441 was passed by the UNSC with language that was accepted by Bush.

My argument is quite simple. George W. Bush was not involved in the language of a UN resolution. They never asked him if he accepted it and didn't need to. The US Ambassador to the UN accepted it, but he is not George W. Bush.

Bush accepted that the UN had passed one final resolution to attempt a diplomatic resolve on Iraq and he agreed to allow this with the understanding that if Saddam failed to comply in any way, the consequences would be serious.

You seem to think Bush was somehow obligated to allow the UN to drag things out and continue diplomacy indefinitely and Bush never said he agreed to that. He sought and received an AUMF from his Congress and gave Saddam one last chance to work with the international community. Saddam failed to comply and Bush acted as he promised he would.

You're a ******* retard.

You didn't say Bush wasn't involved. You said he had no authority over what went in it. Now you're changing your position from Bush had no authority over it to Bush wasn't involved after it was pointed out to you that the resolution was drafted by the U.S. and the U.K.; and since you have no character to simply admit when you're wrong, you double down on stupid.

And of course the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. accepted it -- we ******* wrote it, ya dumbfuck. That you think Bush had no authority over what went in it is retarded. But then, you are retarded. That you think he had no voice in what went in it is retarded. But then, you are retarded.

Well I'm sorry you are as clueless about how UN resolutions are made as you are virtually everything else but I can assure you that the US and UK don't write their resolutions. I didn't change anything..;. Bush wasn't involved in writing the resolution and had no authority over the contents. The US Ambassador did, but he's not BUSH!

And before this goes one step further... I never said that Bush didn't agree with the resolution, opposed the resolution, wasn't happy with the language or content of the resolution... just that he didn't have any involvement or authority over the content and he was never obligated to defer his authority as president to the UN.

 

[Boss]

Have you ever heard of the Bush Doctrine Hoss?

It that the U.S. Will strike before a threat can become imminent. That is what Bush43 did to Iraq.

Iraq is Bush's war. The very first time the Bush Doctrine was carried out. There was no imminent threat from Iraq in 2003.

The threat of WMD potential in the future was by most of the sane people of the world was the correct doctrine.

It's not called the Hillary Doctrine or the Kerry Doctrine. Those Senators wanted no part of it.

Iraq is entirely Bush's war where Afghanistan was the entire country's war. The doctrine fir going into Afghanistan is based on international law. The inherent right to self defense after or before an attack.

Which Bush Doctrine are you talking about? There are three various versions. It was first used in June 2001 (before 9/11) and referred to the US pulling out of Kyoto. After 9/11 it became the policy that the United States had the right to secure itself against countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups. (used as justification for Afghanistan) It has also been used to describe specific policy elements, including a strategy of "preemptive strikes" as a defense against an immediate threat to the security of the United States.

So like everything else in this thread, you are just plain wrong.

 

[Boss]

Of course you changed your position. Show the post where you typed, "it was Saddam's war," before....

Well I've not previously said who's war it was. How did I change positions?

Bush, along with the majority of Congress as well as the United Nations, decided to give Saddam Hussein one last chance to cooperate with the international community or face serious consequences. The cards were all on the table, Saddam knew the stakes as did everyone else. The AUMF was not an authorization to continue never-ending diplomacy efforts. It specifically gave Bush authority to use military force if Saddam failed to comply with this "one last chance" resolution from the UN.

So THERE is where the "decision" was made. The ball was in Saddam's court. All he had to do was cooperate fully and turn over documentation about his WMD programs and stockpiles. He never did.... we STILL don't have that information. So yeah... Saddam's War! Plain and simple.

 

[Faun]

Too ******* stupid. Bush had no voice in the U.N. resolution? Are you ******* nuts (rhetorical)? Don't you know the U.S. is a permanent member of the U.N. (one of only five)?

The U.S., in fact, was one of the primary authors of U.N. resolution 1441. You truly have no ******* clue of that about which you speak. It's beyond evident.

Bush was the President of the United States, not the UN Ambassador.

...The **** are you talking about, fool?

What I'm talking about is that you're ******* baked. I didn't say Bush was the ambassador to the U.N.. I said the U.S. was a primary author of the resolution. And as president of said nation, Bush had a voice AND authority of what went into 1441. You display for all to see just how divorced from reality you really are.

Here's what you said:
the October 2002 AUMF was passed one month before UNSC 1441 was passed by the UNSC with language that was accepted by Bush.

My argument is quite simple. George W. Bush was not involved in the language of a UN resolution. They never asked him if he accepted it and didn't need to. The US Ambassador to the UN accepted it, but he is not George W. Bush.

Bush accepted that the UN had passed one final resolution to attempt a diplomatic resolve on Iraq and he agreed to allow this with the understanding that if Saddam failed to comply in any way, the consequences would be serious.

You seem to think Bush was somehow obligated to allow the UN to drag things out and continue diplomacy indefinitely and Bush never said he agreed to that. He sought and received an AUMF from his Congress and gave Saddam one last chance to work with the international community. Saddam failed to comply and Bush acted as he promised he would.

You're a ******* retard.

You didn't say Bush wasn't involved. You said he had no authority over what went in it. Now you're changing your position from Bush had no authority over it to Bush wasn't involved after it was pointed out to you that the resolution was drafted by the U.S. and the U.K.; and since you have no character to simply admit when you're wrong, you double down on stupid.

And of course the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. accepted it -- we ******* wrote it, ya dumbfuck. That you think Bush had no authority over what went in it is retarded. But then, you are retarded. That you think he had no voice in what went in it is retarded. But then, you are retarded.

Well I'm sorry you are as clueless about how UN resolutions are made as you are virtually everything else but I can assure you that the US and UK don't write their resolutions. I didn't change anything..;. Bush wasn't involved in writing the resolution and had no authority over the contents. The US Ambassador did, but he's not BUSH!

And before this goes one step further... I never said that Bush didn't agree with the resolution, opposed the resolution, wasn't happy with the language or content of the resolution... just that he didn't have any involvement or authority over the content and he was never obligated to defer his authority as president to the UN.

Great. Now you're further compounding your idiocy beyond just ridiculously claiming Bush had no "voice" and no "authority" in what went into U.N. resolution 1441; to add to your ignorance, not knowing that the resolution was written by the U.S. & the U.K..

Like I said, you have no ******* clue about that of which you speak. Here, sit back and watch as this Liberal educates your dumb ass...

"We wrote 1441 not in order to go to war, we wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace. We wrote 1441 to give Iraq one last chance. Iraq is not so far taking that one last chance." - Colin Powell​

 

[whutTHEYsay]

It has also been used to describe specific policy elements, including a strategy of "preemptive strikes" as a defense against an immediate threat to the security of the United States.

Yes. That is the Bush Doctrine used solely by Bush to justify kicking UN inspectors out and then search for the presumed threat of hidden WMD

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Faun 11822028 trying to educate Boss

Like I said, you have no ******* clue about that of which you speak. Here, sit back and watch as this Liberal educates your dumb ass...

"We wrote 1441 not in order to go to war, we wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace. We wrote 1441 to give Iraq one last chance. Iraq is not so far taking that one last chance." - Colin Powell​

Boss cannot be educated because he has deep seated aversions to facts, reason and knowledge. But that being said thanks for bringing up that quote by Colin Powell. Boss has to be forlornly mistaken that Colin Powell was not speaking for the Bush Administration but rather as some yahoo babbling aloud at the UN that was not the set policy of Bush43 his damned self. Boss cannot be aware of the Cheney/Powell split within the Bush Administration. Cheney wanted nothing to do with the UN. Powell thought war could be avoided with a UN deal, So who does Boss think settled that internal dispute? Mickey Mouse?

And the U.S. Amb to the UN at that time I believe was Negraponte. That is who negotiated with the five permanent members mostly to come up with language that even China, Russia and France could accept and not veto. They found veto proof language and wrote it and voted unanimously to adopt it. Does Boss think Negraponte as U.S. Amb to the UN did not take orders from Bush43? Who then? When the USA voted yes for 1441 with 14 other council members, that was Bush's tacit approval of its entire language. It was actually a great achievement set up to avoid war. And it would have worked to avert war had Bush43 listened to the determination by the majority of those same 15 members that voted for it in the first place that SH was in compliance with it.

Boss must not understand how the UNSC and U.S. Amb's to the UN works. That is plain as day here.

If Bush was not in favor of the language of 1441 he would have certainly told Negraponte to veto it. No 1441 would be the result.

Bush wanted a drop dead date in 1441 for completion of inspections - if not met - automatic UNSC trigger for UN sanctioned war. He could not get it. So he went along with the Russian, Chinese, and French wording.

Now Boss doesn't like the way 1441 is worded so Bush43 magically and mysteriously had nothing to do with it. Bush had the power as a permanent member to kill 1441 by veto and just start an invasion when he felt like it,

But killing 1441 would not be in accordance with what Bush told Congress to get the politically motivated AUMF passed a month earlier. That AUMF says that Bush was being authorized to take military action against Iraq in order to enforcie all relevant UNSC Reolutions against Iraq. Bush told Congress that he would seek a new tough resolution at the UN because unlike warmonger Cheney, Bush claimed that he wanted to disarm Iraq peacefully and avoid a war.

When Bush did not veto 1441 he made 1441 very relevant. He did indeed cede the authority to determine whether SH complied with 1441 to the 15 members who had to reach a majority consensus without a veto that SH had not taken his final opportunity to comply. The UNSC never reached that majority nor did it get a report that Saddam was not complying.

So Bush took the matter off the UNSC's hand and told the inspectors that bombs were going to fly. So the inspectors had to leave because there was no way to continue their work with bombs dropping all around them and a U.S. Invasion force 200,000 strong shooting the place up with tanks and helicopters and such.

Iraq is solely Bush's war. He decided alone against his previous words to work with the UN to disarm Iraq peacefully as defined in 1441. He pulled out of the diplomatic solution to go with the bombing and killing solution.

Boss can't name one other person living or now dead that made that very dumb decision.

I know it's a long post but educating the ignorant is long and difficult work.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Boss 11820874

The AUMF was not an authorization to continue never-ending diplomacy efforts. It specifically gave Bush authority to use military force if Saddam failed to comply with this "one last chance" resolution from the UN

That is so much Bull. The members of Congress that voted for or against the AUMF in October 2002 had no idea what a new resolution would say or if one would come at all. The AUMF 'supports' the Bush efforts to seek one.

The understanding was in October, (because Cheney had been dissed by Bush in Seotember) between Congress and the White House that the goal was to get inspections resumed and unobstructed by SH.

Boss has US Congress members capable of foretelling the future. Fortune Tellers.

One person of note (not in the U.S. Congress) was correct at predicting the future if Bush and Cheney talk resulted in a U.S. Invasion of Iraq. It would be a dumb war and it would take much needed intelligence and military assets out of the justifiable war already started in Afganistan. He was so right and that is partly why he was elected President in 2008.

 

[Boss]

Bush was the President of the United States, not the UN Ambassador.

...The **** are you talking about, fool?

What I'm talking about is that you're ******* baked. I didn't say Bush was the ambassador to the U.N.. I said the U.S. was a primary author of the resolution. And as president of said nation, Bush had a voice AND authority of what went into 1441. You display for all to see just how divorced from reality you really are.

Here's what you said:
the October 2002 AUMF was passed one month before UNSC 1441 was passed by the UNSC with language that was accepted by Bush.

My argument is quite simple. George W. Bush was not involved in the language of a UN resolution. They never asked him if he accepted it and didn't need to. The US Ambassador to the UN accepted it, but he is not George W. Bush.

Bush accepted that the UN had passed one final resolution to attempt a diplomatic resolve on Iraq and he agreed to allow this with the understanding that if Saddam failed to comply in any way, the consequences would be serious.

You seem to think Bush was somehow obligated to allow the UN to drag things out and continue diplomacy indefinitely and Bush never said he agreed to that. He sought and received an AUMF from his Congress and gave Saddam one last chance to work with the international community. Saddam failed to comply and Bush acted as he promised he would.

You're a ******* retard.

You didn't say Bush wasn't involved. You said he had no authority over what went in it. Now you're changing your position from Bush had no authority over it to Bush wasn't involved after it was pointed out to you that the resolution was drafted by the U.S. and the U.K.; and since you have no character to simply admit when you're wrong, you double down on stupid.

And of course the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. accepted it -- we ******* wrote it, ya dumbfuck. That you think Bush had no authority over what went in it is retarded. But then, you are retarded. That you think he had no voice in what went in it is retarded. But then, you are retarded.

Well I'm sorry you are as clueless about how UN resolutions are made as you are virtually everything else but I can assure you that the US and UK don't write their resolutions. I didn't change anything..;. Bush wasn't involved in writing the resolution and had no authority over the contents. The US Ambassador did, but he's not BUSH!

And before this goes one step further... I never said that Bush didn't agree with the resolution, opposed the resolution, wasn't happy with the language or content of the resolution... just that he didn't have any involvement or authority over the content and he was never obligated to defer his authority as president to the UN.

Great. Now you're further compounding your idiocy beyond just ridiculously claiming Bush had no "voice" and no "authority" in what went into U.N. resolution 1441; to add to your ignorance, not knowing that the resolution was written by the U.S. & the U.K..

Like I said, you have no ******* clue about that of which you speak. Here, sit back and watch as this Liberal educates your dumb ass...

"We wrote 1441 not in order to go to war, we wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace. We wrote 1441 to give Iraq one last chance. Iraq is not so far taking that one last chance." - Colin Powell​

Hey fuckwits... "WE" doesn't goddamn translate to George W. Bush in any translation dictionary I have... where the **** are you making that amazing leap in logic?

Yes.... people ******* wrote UN1441! I didn't think it wrote itself! Powell did not say the US and UK wrote it... he said "WE" ....and that could be anybody... the UN, the Security Council, etc.

So I hope you've been educated here... WE doesn't mean George W. Bush!

 

[Boss]

It has also been used to describe specific policy elements, including a strategy of "preemptive strikes" as a defense against an immediate threat to the security of the United States.

Yes. That is the Bush Doctrine used solely by Bush to justify kicking UN inspectors out and then search for the presumed threat of hidden WMD

Again, as I have demonstrated, you don't know what the **** you're talking about. Idiot.

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe a myriad of policies of the Bush Administration. And you may be shocked to learn that OBAMA has actually used the Bush Doctrine as justification to bomb Syria. So go **** yourself, as Dick Cheney would say.

Bush didn't kick out anybody, stop LYING through your shit-stained teeth about it. Saddam failed to comply with UN1441 and Bush did what he said he was going to do. He didn't need to use the Bush Doctrine for that, he had the AUMF from Congress. The Bush Doctrine was used to go into Afghanistan because of the Taliban.

 

[Boss]

Boss 11820874

The AUMF was not an authorization to continue never-ending diplomacy efforts. It specifically gave Bush authority to use military force if Saddam failed to comply with this "one last chance" resolution from the UN

That is so much Bull. The members of Congress that voted for or against the AUMF in October 2002 had no idea what a new resolution would say or if one would come at all. The AUMF 'supports' the Bush efforts to seek one.

The understanding was in October, (because Cheney had been dissed by Bush in Seotember) between Congress and the White House that the goal was to get inspections resumed and unobstructed by SH.

Boss has US Congress members capable of foretelling the future. Fortune Tellers.

One person of note (not in the U.S. Congress) was correct at predicting the future if Bush and Cheney talk resulted in a U.S. Invasion of Iraq. It would be a dumb war and it would take much needed intelligence and military assets out of the justifiable war already started in Afganistan. He was so right and that is partly why he was elected President in 2008.

Well, YES Congress DID know that the US was going to ask the UN to pass one last resolution demanding Saddam's immediate cooperation. That's in the ******* bill! The authorization was not the 2002 Authorization to Seek A UN Resolution! You're trying desperately to change history so that it fits your nonsense.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Boss 11820874

The AUMF was not an authorization to continue never-ending diplomacy efforts. It specifically gave Bush authority to use military force if Saddam failed to comply with this "one last chance" resolution from the UN

Do you see the word in between 'force' and 'Saddam' in your statement, Boss? "to use military force "if" Saddam failed to comply". That automatically makes it Bush's War even in your false statement as it is written. That is because Bush would decide how long to continue never/ending diplomacy. If Bush truly wanted war as a last resort as long as any shred of continued diplomacy was not halted by a verified and actionable military threat from Iraq - the its stands to common uncomplicated reason even to a seventh/grader, that you use diplomacy however long it takes.

So that leaves you with explaining how it is possible that Iraq actually posed no immediate threat to the U.S. or any nation during October 2002 with zero inspectors on the ground an no diplomatic efforts in place, but in March 2003 with 200 UN inspectors on the ground and a major diplomatic effort in place and working, Iraq suddenly posed an immediate threat to the U.S. and the region that peaceful diplomatic means had to be abruptly halted and military force in massive scale "HAD" to be used?

Can't wait to see you dance on this one, Boss.

 

[Boss]

Do you see the word in between 'force' and 'Saddam' in your statement, Boss? "to use military force "if" Saddam failed to comply". That automatically makes it Bush's War even in your false statement as it is written.

Nope. Saddam failed to comply, Bush acted as he was authorized to do.

You can say it's Bush's War until the day you die... I don't care, it's over now. Bush isn't going to ever run for office again... nor will he ever be tried for war crimes or any other nonsense. So it totally doesn't matter what you want to call it.

The war happened because Saddam failed to comply with UN1441. Spin it however you like, there were specific things Saddam was required to do which he did not do. That's what caused the war, not Bush.

 

[Boss]

its stands to common uncomplicated reason even to a seventh/grader, that you use diplomacy however long it takes.

Well, not when you've tried diplomacy for ten years and through 17 defied UN resolutions and then seek authorization to use military force if one last effort fails and you've said there will be serious consequences. Most 7th graders probably understand that "serious consequences" doesn't mean never-ending diplomatic efforts. Most 7th graders understand that "your last chance" doesn't mean you're going to keep getting more chances.

Of course, MOST 7th graders are smarter than you.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Boss 11820874 Page 80

The AUMF was not an authorization to continue never-ending diplomacy efforts. It specifically gave Bush authority to use military force if Saddam failed to comply with this "one last chance" resolution from the UN.

No Boss, here what it specifically says. If you wish to claim what it specifically says you should look it up and show us what it specifically says. I did. It too ten seconds.


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.

Do you know Boss, what "Strictly enforce through the UNSC" means? That is through not in defiance of the UNSC which is what Bush did. What is the UNSC Boss? Do you know. According to the AUMG Bush was supposed to go by what the majority on the UNSC came up with (which he could veto if he did not like it.) But he liked it and did not veto it.


NF 11823306 Page 81 in response to 11820874 Page 80

The members of Congress that voted for or against the AUMF in October 2002 had no idea what a new resolution would say or if one would come at all. The AUMF 'supports' the Bush efforts to seek one. <> The understanding was in October, (because Cheney had been dissed by Bush in September) between Congress and the White House that the goal was to get inspections resumed and unobstructed by SH.

You responded by doubling down on your ignorance of what the AUMF(Iraq) specifically says.

Boss 11823454 Page 82

Well, YES Congress DID know that the US was going to ask the UN to pass one last resolution demanding Saddam's immediate cooperation. That's in the ******* bill!

Pay attention I said Congress had no idea what a new resolution would say or if one would come at all. And that is true. What you wrote is plain as day. "Well, YES Congress DID know that the US was going to ask the UN to pass one last resolution demanding Saddam's immediate cooperation. That's in the ******* bill!" Congress could not possibly know that. Stop being a jerk. And I would also point out that the phrase 'immediate cooperation' is not in the AUMF as you claimed Congress knew.

What actually happened in full recorded and documented history, that you deny exists, is that the majority on the UNSC had authority granted by Bush actually and in a majority determined that obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandoned its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and immediately, promptly and strictly complied with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Neither the AUMF or 1441 used a phrase 'cooperation on substance' which has been all you have to latch onto (out of context) in order to make it seem like SH did not cooperate at all and not on all the critical and important issues. There was both immediate and prompt cooperation by Iraq from the very start of the inspections. The paperwork issues could have been resolve within a few months of diplomatic efforts.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Debunking the AUMF was not a 'never ending diplomacy efforts' document.


Boss 11820874 Page 80

The AUMF was not an authorization to continue never-ending diplomacy efforts. It specifically gave Bush authority to use military force if Saddam failed to comply with this "one last chance" resolution from the UN.

There is no set date for when 'diplomacy should end' They set a term "prompt" requesting that the UNSC should take prompt and decisive action which they did. And the AUMF language does not set a 'never-ending' diplomacy 'drop dead date' because they did not know how long it would take for the UN inspectors to complete their work. Inspections had to 'start' promptly. That is what the members of Congress knew in October 2002. So you can drop your 'never-ending diplomacy efforts' BS because it is not included in either. Diplomacy could last as long as it took unless Iraq posed a real threat to the US or the region. And no real threat emerged or was about to emerge with 200 inspectors on the ground in Iraq disarming Iraq peacefuly


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 Ira