There is no justification for the invasion, John Mace. And your present train of thought is highly erroneous. You attempted to contradict my true statement of fact that there was** no authorization to use force by Congress to topple a brutal dictator as some kind of ‘moral good’ or to ‘pave the way for some sort of democracy’**.
I’ll have to cite the authorization to use force from October 2002. It does not say a single thing about promoting the emergence of a democratic government in Iraq as some sort of moral good where it counts as a matter of law.
This paragraph provides the sole two reasons the authority to use military force was being given to the President:
"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 **-- (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.
I hope you realize by now what ‘in order to’ means. It does not mean that force was authorized ‘in order to’ promote democracy or toppling Iraq’s regime as a moral good.
My question is not whether it was legal under U.S. law as authorized by the AUMF; it is pointing out the simple fact that Bush was given the authority to use force to “enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq” and Red Fury’s post supports the fact that Bush in no way ‘enforced all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq’.
The legality in Domestic U.S. law is muddied by the fact that to determine legality impeachment proceedings would have been required, complicated by the FACT that the House and Senate were under the control of Bush’s Party at the time that it became apparent that Bush’s claim on the eve of war that Iraq was concealing without a doubt the most lethal weapons ever devised from the post-1441 inspectors - was false. It was either a lie or a mistake. But it would have taken legal proceedings initiated by Republicans in the House of Representatives to get to the bottom of it.
I want to get to the bottom of it as a matter of historical record. Not to determine if what Bush did was technically ‘illegal’ under U.S. domestic law.
That Bush did not ‘enforce UNSC Resolutions’ as the AUMF directed him to do, should not be a matter of dispute.
Emphasis added. Congress authorized the use of force to enforce UNSC resolutions, one of which was about a “brutal dictator”. Don’t confuse the WMD issue as being the only reason Bush and Congress passed the AUMF. It may have been the most important issue, but it wasn’t the only issue.
So, why didn’t anything happen when the Democrats won control of the House and the Senate in 2006, while Bush was still in office? That is a FACT!!!
You’re making no sense (not surprisingly). If the AUMF did not authorize Bush to do what he did, then what he did was illegal. You state that it is a FACT that cannot be argued that the AUMF did not authorize what Bush did.
Didn’t you know that By 2003, S.H.'s regime had no ability to oppress the Kurdish Population? So you think Bush waged war in 2003 to deal with something that ceased to happen in the mid-nineties.
Most importantly you are wrong because UNSC 1441 contains this language:
Bush did not ‘enforce’ 1441. It is impossible to suggest that he did. 1441 became the over-riding UNSC Resolution over all others including anyone you can cite.
And the AUMF did have two reasons Bush could use military force against Iraq. The first was to defend the national security of the USA… So was enabling Iraqis to create a democracy or making it possible that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected, is defending the national security of the USA?
and to make it more certain that you are wrong… ‘in order to’ use military force Bush was also required to 'enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq.
Bush could not enforce 688 without enforcing 1441. He did not enforce 1441. That is a fact.
It may well have been, perhaps some day that will be determined. But for right now the fact is that Bush** did not ‘enforce’ 1441 as required by the AUMF **so the argument that the AUMF did not have any restraints is a false argument.
Senator Rockefeller read the NIE and was not unaware of the idea that Bush wanted war and he voted yes on the AUMF. in 2005 he told Chris Wallace this:
So do you see why your July 2003 statements that Bush was justified to invade Iraq based upon S.H.'s defiance of the UN disarmament program, provides ‘cover’ for Bush so that his failure to abide by the AUMF has not been seen by enough people to investigate whether it was illegal or not.
If it was not illegal or an impeachable offense it sure was unethical and dishonest and downright stupid to ignore the FACT that UN Res 1441 was working and S.H. could have very confidently have been disarmed peacefully. The only way Bush could have been ‘enforcing’ 1441 was had he kept the pressure and the threat of military force for perhaps six more months without invasion to make certain that Iraq continued to work toward full compliance.
That would have been wise. Invading Iraq was not justified nor can it be justified by all your talk about bringing freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq.
You cannot say “it may well have been” and then claim as a “fact” that Bush did not abide by your alleged claim of a “restraint” in the AUMF. It either was or was not, and if we don’t know then we don’t know.
Again, I ask: Do you know what the word “fact” means?
Again I ask: Why didn’t the Democrats do anything when they took over both houses of Congress after the midterm elections of 2006? You claim Congress did nothing in 2003 because Congress was controlled by Republicans. That doesn’t stand up to even the most casual scrutiny since we also know they did nothing when Congress wasn’t controlled by Republicans.
Of course I know why? And that is why you made no sense and were wrong when you tried to sell the idea that stopping oppression of the population was a big enough issue that Congress needed to authorize an additional AUMF in October 2002 so Bush to use military force in order to stop S.H.'s regime from oppressing the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the South.
You are talking about two different areas of discussion John Mace. The one I cite as a fact is a fact. It is a fact Bush was authorized by Congress in the October 2002 AUMF to use military force ‘in order to’ 'enforce “ALL” relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq. Bush did not ‘enforce’ UNSC Resolution 1441 and could not have ‘enforced’ all the preceding 'relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq because it was already being ‘enforced’ by the UNSC through peaceful means.
Whether the Congress will ever go back and determine that GW Bush’s failure to abide by the AUMF as written made the war illegal is action I’d like to see happen but it has not been determined as of now.
I understand you difficulty with the fact that I am presenting since you were fooled by Dubya when he started the war because you think he was justified because S.H. was defying the disarmament process by the UNSC in January through March 2003. You are wrong about that, but you refuse to accept it. Bush was enforcing Bush’s agenda in March 2003. Bush was not in any way enforcing what the UNSC wanted done.
Sure there is. The idea that war is only justified if it’s in self-defense or under the auspices of the United Nations is a very new one, and not consistently applied by UN member states that can get away with it (such as the United States and the UK in 2003). Other potential justifications for war abound: making the world a better/safer place, avenging past wrongs, glory, territorial expansion, credibility, removing a threat that the other nation’s government is unable or unwilling to deal with themselves (such as a drug cartel or terrorist group), spreading a favored ideology, protecting or placing in power a favored ethnic group or religion…war being the continuation of politics by other means, any political issue can become a justification for war.
Of those justifications I listed, surely “making the world a better/safer place” and “spreading a favored ideology” (if that ideology is liberal democracy) are the most tolerable ones. They still don’t justify war in my mind, because of my respect for sovereignty, my respect for the law of unintended consequences, and my belief that imposing an ideology by force irrevocably corrupts it.
When people speak of a war (or anything else, really) being justified, they aren’t necessarily speaking of a legal justification. Some are willing to see the law be broken if they approve of the goal or the intent behind it. Others don’t consider international law to be law in a meaningul sense of the word.
The only vote I’d call morally justified would be a vote against any pre-authorization of war, or at the very most, a vote for the Levin Amendment. The fact that a problem with Iraq existed doesn’t justify authorizing a military remedy before it is known whether other solutions, such as UN inspections and diplomacy, would work. Pre-approving a war based on what might occur in the future is wildly irresponsible. Pre-approving a war based on how one man interprets events that are yet to come is doubly so.
You can’t win a moral argument with a legal one. People who say the war was morally justified because it removed Hussein from power don’t mean that the war was legally justified by that, they mean only that it was morally justified.
The weight of evidence strongly suggests that it was not illegal.
Obviously there were some restraints, but they weren’t sufficient to stop Bush from invading Iraq on the basis of his opinion that it was necessary. That’s how strong they needed to be, as it turned out. The Levin Amendment had those strong restraints, the AUMF did not.
Yes it is, you wrote how pro-invasion folks blame or will blame Obama for how the war turned out. That should illustrate how deeply partisan tribal loyalties run.
Well, they aren’t going to get Bush or Cheney on their shows. A vast number of books have been written, and several documentaries produced. If you want more than that, I don’t know what to tell you. There may not be as much market demand for this material as you think. Documentaries cost money to make, setting the historical record straight is a distant second to recouping costs.
You could always write your own book.
Nor was it intended to. The point is that truth is secondary to politics and identity.
You should view that as a positive sign, as it means they can’t defend the war on its merits, and have to resort to a tu quoque defense of it.
What would constitute a “strong challenge”, to you?
Democrats accepting that their Congressmen are partially to blame for the war is also a positive sign, as it’s an example of the truth trumping partisan identity. The Democrats have been more successful in the recent past, and are less unified and insular than Republicans in general, so it stands to reason that they’d be less obsessed with deflecting blame.
The only vote I’d call morally justified would be a vote against any pre-authorization of war, or at the very most, a vote for the Levin Amendment. The fact that a problem with Iraq existed doesn’t justify authorizing a military remedy before it is known whether other solutions, such as UN inspections and diplomacy, would work. Pre-approving a war based on what might occur in the future is wildly irresponsible. Pre-approving a war based on how one man interprets events that are yet to come is doubly so.
In the case of Iraq 2002 your argument does not work because (A) politically the Levin Amendment if passed in the Senate would not have passed the House with Bush’s insistence that he needed immediate authority to use force in order to show Iraq he had it, to force Iraq to seriously allow peaceful disarmament to resume.
And (B) because some members of Congress believed Bush had the authority to at least start a confrontation with Iraq and justify invasion without attempting a final shot at peacefully disarming Iraq using the real threat of force if there were no valid attempts to fully comply.
You leave the impression that the Levin Anendment could have passed and would have been forced to agree to it and then that would have stopped the drive for war and Cheney would have given up on taking S.H. out.
Bush did not abide by the AUMF that was passed - what makes you think he would not find a way around the Levin Amendment if he ever was willing to accept it - or no authorization at all besides what he had.
It is not positive at all because the case can only be made by Republicans with the lie that the Democrats voted to authorize what Bush actually did. Bush did not apply the AUMF that was written for him.
As Sen Jay Rockefeller said Bush may have decided to invade Iraq on Sept 12 2001 and Democrats did not take part in that decision.
B) If Congress wasn’t willing to pass the Levin Amendment, then Congress deserves the blame for it. We’re talking about people who were unwilling to vote for a bill, not some law of nature.
C) You seem to be consistenly taking Bush’s word for it that Iraq wouldn’t comply without Bush already having an authorization for war in hand…are you sure you weren’t fooled by W?
Really think about that: some members of Congress believed Bush could start a war without their approval. Their solution to this dilemma was to…give Bush their approval to start a war. Somewhere Bizarro is nodding his head in understanding, but for the rest of us, that makes no logical sense whatsoever.
I don’t assume Bush was interested in war at all costs and in all scenarios. He was unwilling to invade with British support, for instance.
All I ask of Congress is their good-faith best effort to represent their constituents, uphold the law, and act in the best interests of the nation. If they passed the Levin Amendment, and Bush ended up declaring that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and invading anyway using the AUMF Against Terrorists, my conclusion would be that Congress did what they could have reasonably done to prevent a terrible mistake. Of course, they’d still have options at that point: repeal the AUMF Against Terrorists, de-fund the war, impeach Bush, etc.
Also, Bush acting in the way your describe would give the Democratic Party over a year and half to howl their opposition to the war and what Bush had done to get us mired in it. When the 2004 election rolled around, the Democrats would be in an excellent position to retake the White House and restore a sensible foreign policy. The message would be clear: Republicans were about bloody military adventurism, Democrats were about diplomacy, peace, and international law.
Examine what happened instead, and you’ll see the value of not selling out to look ‘tough’ in a political climate that demands it.
They voted to give him war powers, with no end date, and subject to his own discretion, as long as it was limited to Iraq. The fact that they gave him this power well in advance of him using it is not a defense of Congress. They behaved irresponsibly, and Bush used it to his advantage.
Imagine a person loaning their car to a friend who is visibly drunk, who then crashes into and kills a pedestrian. Did the person give their friend the car with the intention that it be used to kill a pedestrian? No. But they empowered the friend to do so, when they should have known better, and they deserve a share of the blame. Less so than the friend, but a healthy share.
And saying “But my friend could have gotten a car from someone else if I hadn’t given him mine!” is not a defense.
That is false. It was not subject to his own discretion without a very certain and specific restraint. It was ‘in order to enforce all UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq’ and Bush did not do it.
And that was an added restriction to the language Bush wanted.
And it is naïve to believe that Bush did not have and would not use ‘his own discretion’ as Commander in Chief during the War on Terror to topple the Hussein regime and declare it was in order to defend the national security of the USA and our interests in the region if Congress denied to pass a special AUMF with regard to Iraq in October 2002.
Iraq was in violation of international law when the AUMF is passed. You have to keep that critical point in mind when you continue making the excuse for Bush that he was wrong but Congress was wrong to allow him to do it.
At least with the AUMF as passed there was some reason to believe that Bush was seriously being rational (sobered up) when he told Congress members that he really wanted to disarm Iraq peacefully, and that he would act rationally (sober) if Iraq and the UNSC resumed productive inspections.
Where your *drunk friend borrows your car and kills a pedestrian *analogy goes awry is that Bush already had the keys to the B1 Bombers, Navy Ships, Armored Vehicles, and tens of thousands of live troops to order into position to confront a threat. Congress (Specifically with the Republican Controlled House and a one vote Margin in the Senate) , could not really keep Bush from driving drunk for sixty days… and the reality is that within sixty days Bush would have already killed that pedestrian whether or not you gave him your set of keys. He could have hot wired your car or anybody else’s and you could not stop him until after sixty days he came to you for gas money. By then it would be too late.
The above is also clear evidence that Bush **in no way enforced **all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq as he was restrained to do in the October 2002 AUMF. It is time to accept that Bush is solely to blame for the invasion of Iraq because he did not comply with the language of the AUMF. Had he acted within the restraints of the AUMF there would have been no Iraq invasion with it’s subsequent quagmire and costly amoral debacle.
And besides had there been a refusal to grant an AUMF in October 2002 by Congress Bush had plan B intact. Bush was already setting up the justification and constitutionality of taking out S.H. without bothering to establish that Iraq was implicated in the September 11, 2001 attacks.
The Levin Amendment would not have stopped Bush and it is doubtful that he would have ever accepted it.
If Senator Rockefeller is correct and Bush decided to invade Iraq within days of the September 11, 2001 attacks then Senator Rockefeller is correct that Congress did not have a part in that decision. It is ridiculous to pin part of the blame on Congress as the Bushies and pro-invasion supporters are so happy that so many on the left do.
Because Bush was already authorized to use military force against Iraq in enforcing the NO Fly Zones which were not part of any UNSC Resolution.
Why not respond to what I wrote instead of what you must revise in order to have a point. I did not write that you suggested it was the ‘only reason’. I wrote that you… “tried **to sell the idea **that stopping oppression of the population **was a big enough issue **that Congress needed to authorize an additional AUMF in October 2002” …and now you can’t back that up so you modified my statement.