I’m making a good-faith effort with you, here. That good faith has not been returned (ha!). The problem is this: your interpretation of the terms of the AUMF are rather…(searching for polite term)…idiosyncratic. When you say “the terms of the AUMF”, I honestly don’t know what you mean: the text? Your spin on said text? What the rest of the world understands the text to mean? Because in the view of myself and Congress, the terms of the AUMF were met, so saying that Bush could decide to invade anytime after those terms were met is saying that Bush could, legally, invade at the time he did so (again, under domestic law).
Anyway…I’m guessing that by “meeting the terms of AUMF”, you mean that the AUMF required a UNSC resolution declaring Iraq to be in breach of 1441, and possibly that it required a UNSC resolution that itself authorized member states to use force. I say “guessing”, because I asked you to tell me if a given scenario (Iraq violating 1441, but the UNSC taking no action in response) would allow Bush to invade and your response was, once again, to ignore it. A habit of yours, as noted, to not only ignore about 80% of all direct questions (speaking of…why did Bush ask for and sign the AUMF?), to pick a sentence or two from a post to respond to and not address the rest all, and to particularly avoid any and all hypotheticals (how many times were you asked the District Attorney question? Had to be about 8, right?) like the plague. Why is this, NotfooledbyW?
“I am citing the language within the AUMF that Congress authorized the President to decide and determine to use military force in order to enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions against Iraq. Bush was not given the power to disagree with and defy a UNSC Resolution that he sought and agreed because that would not be enforcing the very Resolution he himself negotiated. Bush was given full authority to decide and determine when and how to invade Iraq if the UNSC did not pass a new resolution or if the terms of an agreed to Resolution were not being met.” -Ntfldbw
Human Action could not respond with a valid argument to this so he takes us down the path of pondering if ‘when to invade Iraq’ includes the authority for Bush to decide ‘whether to invade Iraq’.
If Bush picked a date to invade it is quite obvious that he has decided whether to invade and the decision was definitely and clearly made to invade.
I am saying Bush made that determination to invade by not abiding by the terms of the AUMF when he decided not to enforce a new resolution that he sought and signed and therefore approved the terms of that UNSC Resolution.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
I am saying Bush made that determination to invade by not abiding by the terms of the AUMF when he decided not to enforce a new resolution that he sought and signed and therefore approved the terms of that UNSC Resolution.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, we all know. You’ve been saying this over and over again through page after page, thread after thread. But, with few if any exceptions, it’s only YOUR interpretation of the AUMF that leads to this conclusion. You don’t seem to grasp this seemingly simple fact…we all get that you see it that way. No one agrees with you. Your interpretation or hypothesis doesn’t seem to coincide with reality either, since, again, this all happened in the past and we know that no one in Congress called Bush on this supposed breaking of the terms of the AUMF, despite the fact that they had many other heated things to say against him, despite the fact that during his re-election would have been the perfect time to hammer him with this if it was something shared by anyone on the planet besides you. Obviously it wasn’t, because no one did it…except you.
To paraphrase, you are the blind man in the kingdom of the sighted, trying to tell everyone else that they can’t see.
You wrote, " it required a UNSC resolution that itself authorized member states to use force. I say “guessing”, because I asked you to tell me if a given scenario (Iraq violating 1441, but the UNSC taking no action in response) would allow Bush to invade and your response was, once again, to ignore it."
That is not true. As long as I have numerous points and false allegations to respond to and trivial diversions to contend and I am still here dealing with much of that, I am not ignoring anything.
It has been prioritized.
Here’s another case of diversion by you because I have made my point of what the terms of the AUMF that Bush did not meet are over and over again. There should be no confusion because I can cite the exact language of the authorization clause which explains why Bush was given authority to determine to use military in order to ‘enforce’ ALL relevant UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq.
Bush did not abide by the terms of the AUMF when he determined to use force instead of enforcing the UNSC Resolution he sought and signed. And that was 1441.
You mentioned ’ it required a UNSC resolution that itself authorized member states to use force’. So what is your it as you say ‘it required’?
I’ve responded to that argument of yours at least a dozen times, probably more. To break this hyper-repetitive cycle, I try and use analogies and hypotheticals, while you steadfastly ignore them, snip bits of my posts to respond to, and recite your canned talking points.
Of all my foes here, that is quite odd coming from you XT.
You are in full agreement with the main thrust of my solid fact based argument that Bush did not abide by the language in the enforcement clause as exactly written in the AUMF. That is because you are on record stating that Bush was not enforcing UNSC resolutions when he started the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. So I must be correct when I state that when Bush used military force in order to NOT ENFORCE UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq, it means Bush could not possibly have abided by the terms of the AUMF when he started the invasion.
So why the continued attack on me when you agree with me that Bush did enforce UNSC Resolutions which is the opposite of the AUMF language in the enforcement clause?
Do you mean what would have had to occur for Bush to invade Iraq as specifically authorized by the AUMF in order to actually be enforcing all relevant UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq at the time of the invasion.
If so, first I must clarify that it was not a given in October 2002 that the UNSC would pass a 1441 Resolution. If no such resolution was passed Bush was authorized to enforce all the UNSC resolutions that Iraq continued to violate.
If inspections resumed and Iraq appeared to cooperate but no 1441 was passed, Bush had the authorization to determine that those inspections would not lead to enforcenent of all existing resolutions regarding Iraq. He would still be wrong if the cooperation were significant.
But when Bush did get 1441 on terms that he agreed with, going in to inspections there is no way as XT and T&D confirm that Bush was complying with the AUMF when he invaded Iraq despite Iraq’s proactive compliance as expressed by Blix.
Yes. Say it’s the day after 1441 passed. What must occur before Bush can invade without violating the AUMF, in whole or in part? The more detail, the better.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
You are in full agreement with the main thrust of my solid fact based argument that Bush did not abide by the language in the enforcement clause as exactly written in the AUMF.
[/QUOTE]
No, I said that 1441 was irrelevant since it was just window dressing for public consumption. I don’t know where you thought I was agreeing with you on this point, but in general I’m pretty much in agreement with HA on the major points he’s trying to beat through your skull…points many, many posters have tried to beat through. On the minutiae I’m sure that we all have points we’d be in disagreement with…far from the lock step you seemed to think we all were in the Pit thread, the reality is we have many disagreements…but on THIS point, especially, you are just wrong. You have your own unique interpretation of what the AUMF means or what powers the Congress granted to Bush that allowed him basically a free hand, and pretty much no one agrees with you on this. Not anyone on this board, afaik, and not anyone in Congress, despite the patent fact that if they DID agree with you then the Dems most certainly would have used this against Bush during his re-election bid. They certainly used everything else against him. But not this. You don’t seem to understand why this bald fact makes your hypothesis on this so silly…or that your hypothesis that you claim to be fact is so easily disproved since, as I’ve tried to note before, all of this happened in the past and we can look back on this event (over 10 years ago) with plenty of perspective. It’s not like the events are unfolding right now, after all.
The UNSC resolutions, including 1441 were irrelevant. Bush, however, certainly used the smoke screen of them and their enforcement as part of his overall strategy to invade Iraq…and the Congress handed this to him. HE got to decide what enforcement meant and what he was or wasn’t enforcing. I don’t understand why you can’t see this, since it’s plain that this is exactly what he did (remember, again, that this all happened over a decade ago, right?), and that no one batted an eye or lifted a finger on this point either at the time or during his re-election. They dinged him for other things (rightfully) but not this one. Why? Well, because aside from you and maybe one or two other people, no one else sees it like you do.
I can’t speak for Tom, but this in no way represents my own position on this. I’m not sure why you feel the need to throw my name around on this, or why you feel that my position, whatever it is would be a cudgel against HA in any case (like he cares what my opinion is, especially if it was wrong :p), but please use your own arguments and stop trying to…well, do whatever it is you think you are doing (enhance your shaky position by saying Tom and I agree with you? Why you think this would fly, especially with my name…I’m not one of the boards more respected posters by any means…is a mystery).
To comply with the AUMF as it is written Bush must enforce whatever 1441 stipulates and therefore Bush must let the UNSC, UNMOVIC, and IAEA run its course and do their work and accept their recommendations, as well as their advice and reports on the status of inspections.
That is how Bush complies with the language in the AUMF. And this is because Bush agreed to the terms of 1441 when he authorized Amb. Negroponte to vote yes for it.
Bush acknowledged with that yes vote for 1441 that Iraq’s threat was not (on that day in November 2002) sufficient to justify regime change by ground invasion in order to remove a threat to US National Security and enforce all relevant UNSC resolutions.
Bush’s desire for invasion and war after the very day that 1441 passed required a supportable argument that Iraq’s threat genuinely increased with the presence of 200 inspectors on the ground in Iraq for the first time in four years.
Bush can also abide by the AUMF after the passage of 1441 and without approval of the UNSC when at any time during the inspection process Iraq commits an egregious overt obstruction and/or denial of access to sites and/or initiates a clear confrontation with inspectors that would make it objectively and clearly recognizable to all interested parties that continuing inspections under 1441 would not lead to peaceful enforcement of all relevant UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq.
Bush can also abide by the AUMF if he is able to determine that the continuing threat from Iraq has actually increased significantly after 1441 was passed in November 2002to a point where nothing short of war would be required to remove and eliminate it.
That determination however must be based on the publically acknowledgeable recognition that Bush was certainly able to determine that Iraq was not a sufficient threat for war on the day he agreed to the terms in 1441 because 1441 gave the Iraq regime a final opportunity to comply. Bush’s yes vote for 1441 meant Bush accepted that Iraq’s regime could stay in power and military force was not required to remove it from power and war could be avoided if peaceful disarming of Iraq would continue.
Bush can also abide by the AUMF after 1441 was passed, while invading Iraq, if there happens to occur any hostile act not necessarily related to UN inspections or an event or intelligence showing a credible threat of attack on the US or our allies was imminent, or any legitimate indication that Iraq’s threat increased after 1441 was passed.
Of course an actual attack by Iraq on US soil or property or a definite tie that Iraq’s regime had given al Qaeda or other terrorists some weapons of mass destruction, would have justified Bush to scrap the 1441 inspection regime no matter how well they were going.
Did you write this?
07-23-2013 at 11:34 PM on the BBQ Pit Arrggggg thread XT wrote the following, (expletive’s deleted indicated by () since this comes from the Pit.
"Why yes, XT can explain this seemingly impenetrable conundrum to you. See, Bush wasn’t () enforcing UN resolutions. (***) Let me run that by you again, since I’m fairly certain you don’t get it (and sadly never will, regardless of repetition)…Bush wasn’t enforcing UN resolutions. Bush wasn’t enforcing UN resolutions. Or, to put it another way, Bush wasn’t enforcing UN resolutions." -XT
So you also said that 1441 was irrelevant. The problem with your reasoning here is that if 1441 was irrelevant it means Bush was not enforcing all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding in Iraq also.
You need to back up how you have come to conclude that UNSC 1441 was irrelevant. Irrelevant to what? Irrelevant to whom? Irrelevant to law?
You wrote, “The UNSC resolutions, including 1441 were irrelevant. Bush, however, certainly used the smoke screen of them and their enforcement as part of his overall strategy to invade Iraq…and the Congress handed this to him. HE got to decide what enforcement meant and what he was or wasn’t enforcing.”
In your mind, did Bush make 1441 irrelevant and set them up as a smoke screen as part of an overall strategy to invade Iraq.
If that is your view, Bush definitely did not follow that language in the AUMF regardless if you think 1441 was irrelevant or not.
You wrote, “No, I said that 1441 was irrelevant since it was just window dressing for public consumption.”
Is it your position that when Congress negotiated the AUMF language with Bush they meant they supported Bush in his efforts to produce a ‘window dressing for public consumption’ with this language:
You do realize that 1441 became that prompt and decisive action by the Security Council, don’t you?
What have you got that shows Congress wrote that up to be window dressing?
07-23-2013 at 11:34 PM on the BBQ Pit Arrggggg thread XT wrote the following, (expletive’s deleted indicated by (***) since this comes from the Pit.
“Why yes, XT can explain this seemingly impenetrable conundrum to you. See, Bush wasn’t () enforcing UN resolutions. () Let me run that by you again, since I’m fairly certain you don’t get it (and sadly never will, regardless of repetition)…Bush wasn’t enforcing UN resolutions. Bush wasn’t enforcing UN resolutions. Or, to put it another way, Bush wasn’t enforcing UN resolutions.” -XT
How can you argue that Bush was complying with the AUMF after writing what you wrote above, and knowing that the AUMF contains this language in the authorization clause:
“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.”
For Bush to be compliant according to XT logic and conclusions wouldn’t the AUMF have to read:
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 NOT enforce all irrelevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
Ok, kudos on an honest attempt to answer a direct question. It’s not complete enough for my purposes, though, so I have some follow-ups. For clarity, I’ve rearranged some paragraphs here and there, but not altered any quoted sections; this is not intended to distort meaning, but instead to illuminate it.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
To comply with the AUMF as it is written Bush must enforce whatever 1441 stipulates and therefore Bush must let the UNSC, UNMOVIC, and IAEA run its course and do their work and accept their recommendations, as well as their advice and reports on the status of inspections.
[/quote]
What part of the AUMF statute leads you to this conclusion?
Who gets to determine if a given act is overt obstruction or not?
I’m rather certain that neither UNMOVIC nor IAEA would openly recommend a military strike, but if they did, and the UNSC didn’t accept their advice, whose recommendation does Bush have to follow?
Also, you told me that 1441 could not be enforced through military action. Now, you’re saying that in the event of an act of overt obstruction, Bush could invade under the AUMF, which means that, by your reading, he’d have to be enforcing 1441 to do so. Yes?
Also, note that allowing the inspections to be carried out isn’t compatible with an invasion under any of the justifications you’ve outlined, as the inspectors would be caught in the crossfire.
Bolding mine. What part of the AUMF statute leads you to the conclusion in the bolded portion?
So, if Bush’s position was that war wasn’t needed in November because he thought Iraq would agree to be disarmed peacefully, but his conclusion that they didn’t cooperate fully with inspections (i.e., hiding weapons) indicated that the threat had increased significantly in the months since November (as hiding weapons implies malice, and a desire to keep the weapons on hand)…that would suffice?
What if his position was that he had intelligence that indicated that the threat had increased to that point, totally independent of the inspection process?
Sure, though the hostile act may or may not justify invasion and overthrow of Hussein, based on the Caroline test. Depends on what the act was.
To be clear: you’re basing the above on Section 3 (a) 1 of the AUMF (defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq), and acknowledge that it may be acted upon separately from 3 (a) 2 (enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq), yes?
Sure, subject to the same factors as the above. The War Powers Resolution already covers that.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Bush acknowledged with that yes vote for 1441 that Iraq’s threat was not (on that day in November 2002) sufficient to justify regime change by ground invasion in order to remove a threat to US National Security and enforce all relevant UNSC resolutions.
Bush’s desire for invasion and war after the very day that 1441 passed required a supportable argument that Iraq’s threat genuinely increased with the presence of 200 inspectors on the ground in Iraq for the first time in four years.
[/quote]
If, after 1441 passed, Bush had a massive heart attack, could President Cheney ignore 1441? After all, he didn’t agree to it.
If Negroponte voted for 1441, against Bush’s wishes (after which he is fired and replaced), could Bush ignore 1441?
Who determines if the argument is supportable or not?
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.
And that is for the reasons I have given as a whole of my argument. Bush tied himself to 1441. If he was insincere when he agreed to the language then he is not ‘enforcing’ all Relevant UNSC resolutions when he defied the will of the UNSC to continue peaceful inspections that were working better than ever before to lead to the enforcement of all UNSC resolutions with regard to Iraq.
Members of Congress did not authorize insincerity on the part of the President.
An act of overt obstruction shows Iraq is not serious about its final opportunity to comply and that renders the UNSC incapable of enforcing 1441 and all relevant UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq and that relieves Bush of his attempt to work through the UNSC and he could correctly write to Congress that Iraq’s overt obstruction meant that 1441 could not lead to enforcement of all UNSC resolutions.
But no overt act of obstruction took place, and in fact Iraq was declared to be proactively working toward full compliance prior to March 17, 2003. Iraq was not requited to achieve full compliance by Bush’s deadline.
Therefore Bush did not ‘enforce’ 1441 because with Iraq’s proactive cooperation 1441 remained a valid means toward enforcement of all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq . And Iraq did not void 1441 by an act of overt obstruction.
But hypothetically if Iraq did that, could have complied with the AUMF by invading. That is what you are looking for isn’t it.
Bush’s action to vote yes for 1441 meant decisively that war was not necessary in November and Bush must not have had intelligence to suggest that war was necessary at that time.
So let me ask you. What method or source after November 2002 would Bush need to use to be able to conclude that Iraq was hiding WMD from the 1441 inspectors?
Hopefully conversations with his heavenly father is not the answer.
Ok…so it is the President that the president alone who decides if “continuing inspections under 1441 would not lead to peaceful enforcement of all relevant UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq”?
Now I’m confused, as you’ve said that Bush could defy the will of the UNSC:
So, he could defy the will of the UNSC in the event of: overt obstruction by Iraq, a recommendation by UNMOVIC or IAEA that he do so, if he determines that the threat from Iraq is such that only force can remove it and ensure the safety of the U.S., if he determines that an Iraqi attack is imminent, or if such an attack actually occurs. Yes?
Is there a sincerity clause in the AUMF that I overlooked?
So, to invade, does Bush have to be enforcing 1441 or not? The above doesn’t contain a clear answer that I can find.
Does that mean only UNMOVIC or IAEA could declare an act to be overt obstruction or not? That is, if inspectors are being harassed and denied access, but under political pressure Blix still reports “proactive cooperation”, would Bush be able to make a determination of overt obstruction? Or can only the UNSC do that? Who decides if Iraq is cooperating or not?
Hey, now, keep calm. I’m trying to logically parse your interpretation of the AUMF. That’s all. Conclusions come later, now is the time for understanding.