# Hubris: The Iraq War **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 19, 2013, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759 "2013-02-19T02:07:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/381 "2013-02-26T18:00:39Z")
> [@](#): > > . There are two possibilites for Ms. Clinton and other members of Congress who voted for the war resolution. Either… /or. -Human Action today at 09:43 am. . Are you telling us now, that your ‘possibilities’ were intended to be ‘motives’ and there are more than the either/or possibilities you offered us? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/382 "2013-02-26T18:28:54Z")
> [@](#): > > What’s your take on the motives of the Congresspeople who voted for the war resolution? I merely pared it down to practical motives (agreeing with the merits of the resolution) or political ones (disagreeing on the merits of the resolution, but supporting it for political gain). By all means, elaborate. Human Action today at 10:57 am Many supported it because it logically reigned in Bush more than other options for killing and maiming Iraqis would do. See what TonyS explains below to Ravenman. There is merit to the concept that Bush would start a war sooner and without a UN last try at inspections, and that it was just as important if not more important to tie Bush to inspections. The UAMF that passed tied Bush to diplomatic efforts although I doubt that you expect that it did. I can’t help you on that, because the Commander in Chief’s word means little to you when we ask to apply it to a document that gives the president the authority to decide whether use of force is necessary. And there is the pass you give the president that you also deny. > [@](#): > > . Emphasis added. Bush put his name to a list of conditions much stricter than the War Powers Act, which required only a single shot at a single US troop. > > You have devoted the last several days to mocking the credulity of people who expected Bush to act in good faith with regard to the October 2002 resolution. > > Why do you now refuse to believe that he would have had too much integrity to invoke the “attack on armed forces” condition of the War Powers Resolution? -TonySinclaire today at 12:09 pm ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/383 "2013-02-26T18:43:35Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > …the US Congress was CORRECT to put trust into the Commander in Chief’s hands to do whatever was necessary, including the use of military force to coerce Iraq into compliance with international law and be verified disarmed. Clearly they weren’t correct, were they? Given the outcome, and that Bush was clearly spoiling for a war; and tellingly, citing reasons that went far beyond compliance with WMD inspections. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The historical record shows that Iraq’s attempts to be compliant with international law and demonstrate its willingness to be verified disarmed were headed for a peaceful outcome regardless of whether the AUMF was the catalyst for that decision. Agreed. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The failure and the only reason a war came about as peaceful efforts were clearly the proper and non-deadly way to go, was that the US president decided to abandon all peaceful efforts and engage his nation and other’s into starting a war when peace was apparent. > > There is no excuse for what Bush did to the people of Iraq such as blaming it on Congress for authorization to do it. It’s not like we have 8 oz. of blame to go around and have to be stingy. Let’s blame everyone who’s blameworthy, which includes Bush AND much of Congress. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The vote was ok. The decision to start the war was terribly wrong. I will call that decision evil and stand by it with conviction. What was Bush’s motive, in your opinion, for ordering the invasion? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The lesson to learn for future generations should be in my view that, the obvious bad decision by Bush to kill and maim Iraqis to disarm it’s leaders, should not be forgotten as to how it came about. Which means not minimizing the background to that decision. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > It should be that when a President’s word is given that force would be used as a last resort and only if necessary, then blatantly broken, then we will allow the international community to decide if that injudicious and unrestrained use of force to disturb the otherwise peace, was indeed a war crime or not. > > We should promise to hand Bush over, if the Hague or Iraqis seek to indict him. Make the promise. > > Bush on trial for his decision would do the most for preventing anything like this from happening again. The U.S. [isn’t party](http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9968.htm) to the International Criminal Court, and even if it was, Bush’s acts wouldn’t fall under their jurisdiction. The crime of aggression doesn’t come under ICC jurisdiction until 2017, and: > [@](#): > > 1.The Court may exercise jurisdiction only with respect to crimes of aggression committed one year after the ratification or acceptance of the amendments by thirty States Parties. > 2.The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with this article, subject to a decision to be taken after 1 January 2017 by the same majority of States Parties as is required for the adoption of an amendment to the Statute. That ratification by 30 states still hasn’t come, so Bush’s acts are too long ago to qualify. As for an Iraqi court, hell no. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Are you telling us now, that your ‘possibilities’ were intended to be ‘motives’ and there are more than the either/or possibilities you offered us? I’m saying that there were two motives to vote yes on the war resolution: either the Congressperson thought it was the best way available to solve the Iraq WMD problem, OR they thought it wasn’t and voted yes anyway. Given that we’re speaking about over a hundred individuals, it could be that someone voted yes accidentally, or sold their vote for cash, or was drunk. I think the more likely explanation is the one neatly summarized by **Kepler1571** : > [@Kepler1571](#): > > At the time it looked suspiciously like they were simply too concerned with posturing as tough to mount a serious challenge to the march towards war. The Dems are easily bulldozed into that mistake because since the end of Vietnam they have been on the “hey, maybe a fist isn’t the solution to everything?” side of the culture wars, and in the grip of war fever people don’t want to hear that. Someone who voted yes because they believed in the merit of the resolution erred. Someone who voted yes when they didn’t believe the resolution had merit is a scoundrel. I don’t care which Congressman was in which category, because either way they must face their share of blame for the war. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/384 "2013-02-26T18:49:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Ironically, to avoid being labeled “weak” on the threat from outside they were in actuality weak on the threat from inside. > > And that of course undercut them when the occupation went inevitably to hell and then they conveniently remembered their backbone. -Kepler today at 12:39 pm. Are you aware of the UN inspections that took place after the Democrats you call spineless voted to authorize war if that diplomatic effort failed? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/385 "2013-02-26T18:52:54Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Many supported it because it logically reigned in Bush more than other options for killing and maiming Iraqis would do. See what TonyS explains below to Ravenman. There is merit to the concept that Bush would start a war sooner and without a UN last try at inspections, and that it was just as important if not more important to tie Bush to inspections. With all due respect to **TonySinclair** , I don’t find the War Powers Act argument credible. There was no chance Bush would invade on that basis. The war resolution gave his invasion legitimacy. Unless a U.S. aircraft was actually shot down, and probably not even then, Bush invading over some potshots would have led to a massive outcry, and quite possibly impeachment. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The UAMF that passed tied Bush to diplomatic efforts although I doubt that you expect that it did. I’m familiar with the document. The problem is that it gave sole power to determine whether diplomatic efforts had failed to…George W. Bush. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I can’t help you on that, because the Commander in Chief’s word means little to you when we ask to apply it to a document that gives the president the authority to decide whether use of force is necessary. _Anyone’s_ word should mean little in such circumstances; again, that’s part of why we have separation of powers. Government doesn’t run on trust, it runs on statutes and powers. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And there is the pass you give the president that you also deny. I don’t know what that means. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/386 "2013-02-26T19:26:23Z")
> [@](#): > > What was Bush’s motive, in your opinion, for ordering the invasion? Human Action today at 01:43 pm Drama. Bush was conflicted having many oddball reasons personally for confronting SH including some variation of being on a messianic mission to save the world from terrorism. But what made him pull the trigger when the prospect of peaceful disarmament was clear was drama. The glory of tanks rolling into Baghdad to free oppressed people in a military action that last a month or two and be over. The threat of WMD was not really on his mind by March 2003. Disarming Iraq peacefully was flat wine of which Great War Presidents do not imbibe. Anybody’s guess really. Thats my take. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/387 "2013-02-26T19:48:35Z")
> [@Kepler1571](#): > > Bush’s handlers wanted the war from his first day in office, it’s all there in PNAC’s position papers and the Neocons’ philosophy of Peace Through Aggression. > > The more interesting question is: what were the Dems thinking? At the time it looked suspiciously like they were simply too concerned with posturing as tough to mount a serious challenge to the march towards war. The Dems are easily bulldozed into that mistake because since the end of Vietnam they have been on the “hey, maybe a fist isn’t the solution to everything?” side of the culture wars, and in the grip of war fever people don’t want to hear that. > > Ironically, to avoid being labeled “weak” on the threat from outside they were in actuality weak on the threat from inside. And that of course undercut them when the occupation went inevitably to hell and then they conveniently remembered their backbone. Indeed. A good & succinct explanation of the state of affairs at the time. Though I repeat, there wasn’t much need for hindsight since it was pretty much all out in the open. Barring the so-called “super-doooper-for-some-eyes-only-under-penalty of death for disclosing,” Intelligence secrets. Which, of course, was also a bunch of Bushshit. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/388 "2013-02-26T19:51:00Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > With all due respect to **TonySinclair** , I don’t find the War Powers Act argument credible. There was no chance Bush would invade on that basis. The war resolution gave his invasion legitimacy. Unless a U.S. aircraft was actually shot down, and probably not even then, Bush invading over some potshots would have led to a massive outcry, and quite possibly impeachment. The point is that he would not have invaded over the potshots; as far as the public and press was concerned, he would have invaded over the horrifying threat of the WMDs that Iraq was preparing to unleash on the US (or smuggle to al Qaeda), before the smoking gun could become a mushroom cloud. The potshots would just have been his legal cover, and would have been more than enough to prevent impeachment. Besides, any talk of impeachment is ludicrous, when the Republicans controlled both houses. Depending on how much cover the vote on the October AUMF gave to Democrats, Bush might have had an even stronger majority by November than he actually ended up with, if more Dems had voted “no.” I honestly don’t understand how anyone can think that a public, press, and Congress who didn’t raise a massive outcry/call for impeachment over his actual legal figleaf for invasion (that nothing short of war could protect the US, which was patently false), would do so over a reason for invasion that was probably true (albeit IMO insufficient). In fact, Congress has historically been so spineless that I doubt he would have even needed to invoke the War Powers Resolution. It was passed in 1973 (over Nixon’s veto), and although the US has taken military action many times since then without a declaration of war, the WPR has never been invoked. Not because it is tough to meet its conditions, but because Presidents see it as a restriction on their powers, not an unleashing. They don’t want to set a precedent of relinquishing one iota of the war-making power that they see as their constitutional right as Commander-In-Chief. Given the shameful lack of fact-checking by the “liberal” media during 2002, I think it’s entirely likely that had the AUMF failed, Bush would merely have amped up the WMD publicity campaign, and without UN inspectors to prove that Iraq was no danger, he could easily have exploited, provoked, or faked an incident that would have resulted in broad support of an invasion. And once the troops are under fire, the public, press, and Congress almost always fall in line. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/389 "2013-02-26T19:56:00Z")
> [@](#): > > . I’m familiar with the document. The problem is that it gave sole power to determine whether diplomatic efforts had failed to…George W. Bush. -Human Actions 01:52 pm. That was the intent. Colin Powell worked for Bush. Bush was the one, not a bazillion Congress members, who would diplomatically drive the push to get the UN to act. Bush demanded the AUMF prior to going full out to the UN. Powell gave Bush credibility that Bush did not deserve - we found out later. But in the mind of many Dem Senators that UN push with Powell involved had merit. I’m talking at the time with what was known. You can disagree, but there is nothing that makes you right at the moment in time when people had to. Your advantage if 20+20 hindsight to criticize a difficult vote does not cut it with my review of all factors involved. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/390 "2013-02-26T19:58:06Z")
Tony: So why did Bush bother seeking the AUMF? This is not something Congress cooked up. Why did he need the AUMF to threaten SH with in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/391 "2013-02-26T20:23:27Z")
**TonySinclair** : I started to type an in-depth response, and then decided it wasn’t worth it. No, I do not believe that George Bush would have invaded on the basis of attacks on planes over the NFZ. Why? Because Bush asked for an authorization for war based upon WMD, and the mention in that resolution of attacks on our pilots barely rates seven words. Plus, one has got to be the biggest pushover in the world to react thusly: Alternate World Bush: “I want to invade Iraq. Authorize it or I’ll do it on my own under flimsy legal circumstances!” Pushover Congress: “Wow, if he invades on his own we’ll be in a mess of trouble! We will authorize anything he wants!” There is no way on earth that I will ever agree that Pushover Congress is acting prudently in that scenario. The principal problem with the “Inspections were working until Bush lied about them not working” argument is that the law authorized Bush, and him alone, to exercise his own, independent, unfettered judgment as to whether they were working. Personally, I think Bush really did think there was WMD in Iraq: in essence, he was caught up in his own echo-chamber. The war resolution specifically empowered Bush to come up with his own assessment of the situation, no matter how divorced from reality, and made his opinion alone the dispositive decision on whether war was necessary. _You may not like Bush’s decision, but he was exercising the precise power that you are happy that Congress gave to him._ The difference between dealing with a Bush decision to invade on the pretext of stopping attacks on US aircraft and the Congress giving Bush the full legal and constitutional authority to invade if Bush simply felt it was necessary is not quite night and day, but it is a difference between noon and twilight. If Bush proposed to invade on March 19 on the basis of a hypothetical attack on a US airplane on March 18, Congress could reach its own conclusion as to whether that was a proportional response to the threat. (Regardless of the War Powers Resolution, the US is still subject to the law of war in that actions in self-defense must be proportional to the threat, see the Caroline Affair.) But as it happened, Congress authorized Bush to issue his own personal opinion on whether to attack without knowledge of whether there would be inspections, what those inspections might find, and whatever other developments may have occurred. That’s as stupid an action as Congress passing a use of force resolution today so that some future President to attack Iran to stop a nuclear weapons program, and then hoping and praying that (a) we learn something about the program and (b) that future presidents – not just Obama, but any future president – won’t have a hard-on for attacking Iran. That is stupid, and any legislator who may be convinced that voting today for war at some point in the indefinite future, without actual information for the actual need for war, is either being a total fool or is looking for reasons to take a politically easy vote. There is no moral or intellectual justification for passing the buck on an important constitutional power to someone else in such a way. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/392 "2013-02-26T20:25:48Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Depending on how much cover the vote on the October AUMF gave to Democrats, Bush might have had an even stronger majority by November than he actually ended up with, if more Dems had voted “no.” Are you saying that you are/were more concerned about the electoral outcome if Democrats had voted no on war; rather than the outcome of supporting a totally unjustified war? Because that’s what I’m saying most Democrats did, and that they should apologize for it. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/393 "2013-02-26T20:28:52Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Besides, any talk of impeachment is ludicrous, when the Republicans controlled both houses. Depending on how much cover the vote on the October AUMF gave to Democrats, Bush might have had an even stronger majority by November than he actually ended up with, if more Dems had voted “no.” Perhaps; it’s unknowable, and depends on when in your scenario Bush invades. > [@TonySinclair](#): > > I honestly don’t understand how anyone can think that a public, press, and Congress who didn’t raise a massive outcry/call for impeachment over his actual legal figleaf for invasion (that nothing short of war could protect the US, which was patently false), would do so over a reason for invasion that was probably true (albeit IMO insufficient). Because Congress has to protect its powers from the Executive. Such considerations trump party allegiance. Since the legal figleaf came from Congress itself, they weren’t in a strong position to contest it. If it was Bush asking alone, it’s a very different situation. > [@TonySinclair](#): > > In fact, Congress has historically been so spineless that I doubt he would have even needed to invoke the War Powers Resolution. It was passed in 1973 (over Nixon’s veto), and although the US has taken military action many times since then without a declaration of war, the WPR has never been invoked. Not because it is tough to meet its conditions, but because Presidents see it as a restriction on their powers, not an unleashing. They don’t want to set a precedent of relinquishing one iota of the war-making power that they see as their constitutional right as Commander-In-Chief. > > Given the shameful lack of fact-checking by the “liberal” media during 2002, I think it’s entirely likely that had the AUMF failed, Bush would merely have amped up the WMD publicity campaign, and without UN inspectors to prove that Iraq was no danger, he could easily have exploited, provoked, or faked an incident that would have resulted in broad support of an invasion. And once the troops are under fire, the public, press, and Congress almost always fall in line. So, we can agree that without the authorization, Bush’s task of getting soldiers on the ground becomes substantially more difficult, though not impossible. I argue that that increase in difficulty, and lack of legitimacy, would have been enough to stay Bush’s hand. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Bush demanded the AUMF prior to going full out to the UN. And Congress should have said “no” to that demand. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > But in the mind of many Dem Senators that UN push with Powell involved had merit. I’m talking at the time with what was known. Then they should have passed the Levin Amendment and tied the invasion to the UN’s rulings. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You can disagree, but there is nothing that makes you right at the moment in time when people had to. Your advantage if 20+20 hindsight to criticize a difficult vote does not cut it with my review of all factors involved. This sort of logic can justify anything: You can disagree, but there is nothing that makes you right when Bush had to make the tough call to invade. You have 20/20 hindsight, but Bush had to rely on his intelligence sources, including highly-placed Iraqi defectors, not the UN team, which was thought to be unreliable and easily tricked by cat-and-mouse games by Hussein. It’s not fair to blame Bush for being mistaken, he was acting in good faith using the information he had at the time. Heck, even Hillary Clinton said in 2004: > [@Hillary Clinton](#): > > But [the Bush Administration] really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn’t let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take place when a serious decision occurs like that. So, it’s wildly unfair to criticize Bush, just because you have hindsight. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/394 "2013-02-26T20:29:52Z")
> [@](#): > > The historical record shows that Iraq’s attempts to be compliant with international law and demonstrate its willingness to be verified disarmed were headed for a peaceful outcome regardless of **whether the AUMF was the catalyst for that decision**. Ntfldbw today at 12:11pm. > > > [@](#): > > > > . > > “Agreed.” -Human Actions today at 01:43 pm. God Bless America! I hope you understand what I wrote and don’t back out on your agreement. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/395 "2013-02-26T20:31:53Z")
BTW, I’ve linked to polls before and I’m not going to drag them in here again, but Americans were not eager to go to war in Oct 2002, and most wanted UN Authority before doing so. I don’t think Democratic Senators really needed to worry about re-election, certainly not HRC and Kerry. And, of course, I hope that wasn’t what they based their vore on! ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/396 "2013-02-26T20:33:57Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > _You may not like Bush’s decision, but he was exercising the precise power that you are happy that Congress gave to him._ **Ravenman** , that’s a good summary. The difference is between criticizing an _outcome_; a decision one didn’t agree with, versus criticizing a _process_, the systemic factors that enabled the decision to occur at all. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/397 "2013-02-26T20:37:30Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > God Bless America! I hope you understand what I wrote and don’t back out on your agreement. I’ve never deviated from that position. If Bush hadn’t made the decision to invade, the Iraqi WMD affair would almost certainly have been peacefully concluded, leaving Hussein in power but without open warfare. However, it’s wrong to ignore what led to Bush making the decision; and _being legally able_ to make it, which was the war resolution. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/398 "2013-02-26T20:39:17Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Tony: So why did Bush bother seeking the AUMF? This is not something Congress cooked up. Why did he need the AUMF to threaten SH with in the first place? He didn’t, but he was portraying himself, in one speech after another, as someone who wanted to find a peaceful solution, and for whom war was a last resort. And the bill he asked for was a far cry from the bill he got. Bush is not a stupid man, and he could usually play Congress like a violin, but this one got away from him. The version the White House proposed was much, much weaker than the resolution Congress passed. Here’s what the [first version of the bill](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107wpkR3R::), based on the White House proposal, says: > [@](#): > > The President is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region. It had a long list of “whereas this” and “whereas that” about UN resolutions, but as you can see, the action part of the bill (which I quoted in full) had no requirement to even attempt to go through the UN; it just gave Bush carte blanche to do whatever he saw fit to “defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq.” I don’t know how you can have a weaker premise for war than that, unless it’s the lack of international peace and security in the Middle East. The final bill, which I’ve quoted several times already, had much tougher conditions, and required Bush to sign his name to a document wherein he was obviously lying. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/399 "2013-02-26T20:48:21Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > He didn’t, but he was portraying himself, in one speech after another, as someone who wanted to find a peaceful solution, and for whom war was a last resort. But the outcome would have been exactly the same. He could have amassed troops in Kuwait while proclaiming up and down that it was only to force SH’s hand. But that he was prepared to use force as a last resort. Why would SH act any differently just because, according to you, Bush had a note from Congress that he didn’t need in the first place? > [@](#): > > And the bill he asked for was a far cry from the bill he got. Bush is not a stupid man, and he could usually play Congress like a violin, but this one got away from him. The version the White House proposed was much, much weaker than the resolution Congress passed. But that just supports the proposition that Bush shouldn’t have asked for the AUMF if he didn’t think he needed it. > [@](#): > > The final bill, which I’ve quoted several times already, had much tougher conditions, and required Bush to sign his name to a document wherein he was obviously lying. What difference does it make if he had sign a piece of paper? And how do you know he was lying? He probably really thought he was doing the right thing. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/400 "2013-02-26T21:01:46Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > **TonySinclair** : I started to type an in-depth response, and then decided it wasn’t worth it. No, I do not believe that George Bush would have invaded on the basis of attacks on planes over the NFZ. Why? Because Bush asked for an authorization for war based upon WMD, and the mention in that resolution of attacks on our pilots barely rates seven words. Attacks on our troops are explicitly mentioned as a trigger in the action section of the WPR. WMDs are not explicitly mentioned in the action section of the AUMF; they are just one of many subjects listed in the “whereas” section reviewing UN resolutions. As for the rest, I’ll just agree to disagree. It seems inconsistent to me that you think that Bush was so transparently evil that everyone in Congress should have known that he would invade no matter what happened after the AUMF was passed (and I can’t imagine a better outcome than what actually transpired, namely Saddam allowing the inspectors in, and the inspectors reporting (eventual) full cooperation and an apparent lack of WMDs), and yet you can’t believe that he would have found another way to invade if it hadn’t passed. But since neither of us can prove what would have happened in that case, I’m content to leave it there. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759.md?page=21)