# 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:** 23
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/441 "2013-02-28T00:38:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Sorry, no, evaluating the events in their totality will always be more illuminating. #370 Yesterday, 08:02 AM 57a I am for evaluating all events and all conditions. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/442 "2013-02-28T03:01:03Z")
> [@](#): > > . No, it makes no sense. Bush knew he needed Congressional approval for a massive land invasion, and he would be risking a lot, politically, if he did it with the explicit sanction from Congress not to. If he didn’t need it, he would have been much better off not asking for it. -John Mace #406 Yesterday, 04:37 PM 57 One possibility that some here refuse to allow, is that Bush apparently never cared about making sense as a rational and sane man when he pushed committing the USA military into a massive ground invasion of 300,000 troops into a Muslim nation of 20,000,000 + friendly Kurds. When Bush actually started asking for authorization to NOT use force if the threat could be removed peacefully, would that have been a sign that the man was climbing down from his 9/11 induced insanity and starting to act like a normal president? What should a US Senator do if one suspects the president and leader if the opposition party seems to go in and out of periods if insanity and sanity. I don’t think the Constitution deals with what Senators should do under such pressure. Does the whacky President mean what he says or is he nuts? Man, that had to be a tough call. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/443 "2013-02-28T05:43:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Bush is still responsible for pushing his administration to manufacture reasons to invade. Bush is still responsible for deliberately ignoring his own Joint Chiefs of Staff in their estimates of what would be needed to occupy Iraq. Bush is still responsible for creating a climate in which his Neo-Con buddies were placed in positions where they could lie to the American people, defame honest people doing their jobs who did not provide the “right” answers, manipulate intelligence data, etc. Bush gets lots of legitimate blame for a lot of genuine sins. > > The problem, here, is that you seem to feel the need to claim that Bush is the sole actor whose behavior is blameworthy. That is silly. Everyone who willingly went along with Bush on this ride, from senators who failed to read the intelligence reports they were given or the actual text of the bills on which they would vote, through the media that slavishly reported the party line while failing to actually investigate conflicting claims, down to the ordinary citizens who were so hyped up with chauvinistic fervor that they failed to examine information that contradicted the administration’s spiel. > > Bush is not made less culpable because he persuaded others to join him. > > “Your effort to make him singularly responsible for this tragedy makes no sense.” - tomndebb 02-24-2013 12:00 AM 55a0000 That you cite all that Bush and his cohorts did without mentioning once that UN inspections intervened between the vote for war if necessary and Bush’s lone decision to force the abandonment of inspections shows that my visit here not only makes sense, but it is necessary. **Bush is solely responsible for making the decision to kick inspectors out** , and when you comprehend that, what I’ve written makes a lot of sense. And with an emphasis on inspections and Bush’s forcing them to end, my question makes a lot of sense. Why do so many on the left diminish the importance of inspections as do the righties who continue to stand up for Bush’s decision to start a war. All I was trying to do was search for answers to that question. And that inquiry touched a lot of nerves. ---
**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 28, 2013, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/444 "2013-02-28T13:09:34Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Would you accept that ‘peaceful disarmament of Iraq’ ‘as a goal’ was a valid and reasoned motive for Clinton and Kerry in October 2002, for granting authorization to use force to a president that they clearly recognized as having all the flaws and dastardly ways that you defined, but their choice was between voting no and getting no restraints or movement from that radical war-mongering deluded president toward renewed UN inspections or and I repeat or; > > You go with the best language that can be negotiated with that war crazed president and expect that the recent hints from him as preferring a peaceful solution are sincere, giving the world the best shot at 'keeping the peace. No, I would not. My basis for this is: 1. The war resolution as passed has no real restraints at all. Requiring the President to send a written notice to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, which under the circumstances meant certifying in writing that he was either lying or badly mistaken, is not a restraint. A restraint makes one _unable_ to do something; there is nothing in the war resolution that made Bush unable to invade. 2. Had the Democrats, Sen. Jeffords (I-VT), and Sen. Chafee (R-RI) all voted no, the resolution would have been defeated in the Senate, 52-48. It’s true that the Republicans took a majority in the next session, but unless Bush and the public was content with staying pat until the next session took their seats on January 7th, the matter of Iraqi WMDs still would have been pursued by the UN. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Can you tell me that you, in Senator Clinton’s shoes, would be able to, trust the president you described as one that ‘desired regime change, indicating ulterior motives beyond the WMD issue, and was clearly relying on worthless intelligence, indicating either poor judgment or a willingness to lie’. > > Would you, in that position, trust that if Bush were denied the AUMF he wanted in October, in the way he wanted it, just take that “NO” for an answer and give up doing all you said he was doing, or start working on another way? What other way do you mean? Invade on his own? I don’t find that credible, as previously discussed. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Bush did get the Senate about one month later - which was an unknown for HRC when she voted. > > So one choice was potentially the last chance for a Democrat Senate to put any kind of limited restraint on the war cowboy you described or, Again, though, the resolution did not actually limit or restrain Bush in any way. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Or just say NO and turn the war crazed Cowboy loose to try again in one month - and possibly send a signal to the UN and Iraq that Bush can’t get his war and the UN and Iraq lose the pressure so they do not act? > > I think the UN acted when they saw the US Congress united and seriously backing the President for war, If Iraq refused to be disarmed. There’s a third option, here, though. Authorize the President to use force, but only pursuant to a UNSC resolution. That is, the Levin Amendment, which is a fine compromise between no authorization and a blanket one. The Senate should have been able to pass it, and I’d wager that the House would have passed it as well in order to achieve an authorization. Bearing in mind that I feel strongly that Bush expected Hussein to defy the UN inspectors (and likely concluded that they did, in fact, though he was mistaken), I don’t think in October 2002 he thought a UNSC resolution allowing him to invade was far off. Now, if this approach has a downside, it’s that it requires publicly opposing the President’s request for authorization during an emotionally-charged time. Except, it really doesn’t: the Levin Amendment is indeed a war resolution, and [Americans at the time supported the inspection process and working through the UN](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq), even up to the eve of the invasion. ---
**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 28, 2013, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/445 "2013-02-28T13:19:35Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > One possibility that some here refuse to allow, is that Bush apparently never cared about making sense as a rational and sane man when he pushed committing the USA military into a massive ground invasion of 300,000 troops into a Muslim nation of 20,000,000 + friendly Kurds. > > When Bush actually started asking for authorization to NOT use force if the threat could be removed peacefully, would that have been a sign that the man was climbing down from his 9/11 induced insanity and starting to act like a normal president? His actions are rational and sane if you accept that: 1. He thought removing Hussein from power was a noble, worthy goal. 2. He thought a war to do so would be a short one, after which the Iraqis would welcome their American liberators and establish a Western-style government. 3. He was willing to lie to achieve this, OR exercised profoundly bad judgement. Bush is many things, but he’s no madman. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > What should a US Senator do if one suspects the president and leader if the opposition party seems to go in and out of periods if insanity and sanity. > > I don’t think the Constitution deals with what Senators should do under such pressure. > > Does the whacky President mean what he says or is he nuts? > > Man, that had to be a tough call. Since you asked, this is spelled out in the [25th Amendment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution): > [@](#): > > Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. > > Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. So, if the Senate believed the President was actually insane, they could: 1. Ask the Vice-president to marshall support in the Executive branch for assuming the role of Acting President. Failing that; 1. Ask the House of Representatives to impeach the president. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/446 "2013-02-28T15:12:35Z")
> [@](#): > > . What other way do you mean? Invade on his own? I don’t find that credible, as previously discussed. -Human Action today 59 No. Get Congress to authorize it after the Mid Terms. Confident of winning the Senate because the Dem Senate voted against Keeping the peace. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/447 "2013-02-28T15:24:11Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Then you need to get the WPR repealed, and you need to get Congress to impeach any President who commits troops to combat without getting permission from Congress. Which is many, if not most of them. Just to clarify this, I don’t think repealing the WPR would make a difference. When the Presidents commit troops without permission from Congress, the Presidents are not relying on the WPR to do so, but on Constitutional authority. ---
**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 28, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/448 "2013-02-28T15:24:33Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > No. Get Congress to authorize it after the Mid Terms. > > Confident of winning the Senate because the Dem Senate voted against Keeping the peace. Well, so be it, then. As a Senator, or a political party, you aren’t accountable for what other Senators or parties do. Under your scenario, the war is a purely Republican creation. This gives the Democrats a moral high ground they can use later to end the war sooner, or attack the ideology that led to the war. In actual fact, they sold out that moral high ground by voting for the war resolution. Also, the Republicans won a (slim) majority in the Senate in spite of the Democrats voting in the war resolution, and the resolution had no restraints on the President’s power to invade, so **nothing** was gained. ---
**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 28, 2013, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/449 "2013-02-28T15:31:49Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > Just to clarify this, I don’t think repealing the WPR would make a difference. When the Presidents commit troops without permission from Congress, the Presidents are not relying on the WPR to do so, but on Constitutional authority. It’s not a settled issue, how Congress’ war powers from Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 interact with the President’s status as Commander-in-Chief from Article Two, Section Two. The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the matter beyond [Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer). ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/450 "2013-02-28T18:13:08Z")
> [@](#): > > As a Senator, or a political party, you aren’t accountable for what other Senators or parties do. -Human Action Today, 10:24 AM 59 HRC and Kerry are two who voted for the October 2002 Resolution because they (a) wanted to force Iraq to be disarmed because they saw it as threat that needed to be settled sooner rather than later, and (b) They saw it as credible that Bush had backed off the automatic war grive by expressing the need to go through the UN, but Bush wanted the authority to wage war to ENFORCE UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION settled right there and then to make the peaceful way be more forceful. They voted for what they saw as the best way to get Iraq disarmed peacefully with what they knew about Bush and Iraq and the UN Secruity Council at the time. I never said they voted against their own personal best judgment. > [@](#): > > ``` > Under your scenario, the war is a purely Republican creation. This gives the Democrats a moral high ground they can use later to end the war sooner, or attack the ideology that led to the war. In actual fact, they sold out that moral high ground by voting for the war resolution. -Human Action Today, 10:24 AM 59 > > ``` That is not true. I never said it was a purely Republican Creation. That is why the inspection aspect is so critical. I would assume that there were many Republicans also who were swayed, by Bush’s PEACEMAKER talk but would be willing to give Bush authority to invade or whatever, IF the UN Inspections did not come about like they did. > [@](#): > > Also, the Republicans won a (slim) majority in the Senate in spite of the Democrats voting in the war resolution, and the resolution had no restraints on the President’s power to invade, so nothing was gained. -Human Action Today, 10:24 AM 59 Knowing what would happen as Senators cast there vote in Octover is speculative at best. I brought it up because you were limiting a real possibility that could have influenced the vote. Reject Bush the Peacemaker in October.. Turn Bush the war monger loose in November… And you are wrong that the language did not contain sufficent language to reign Bush in some… “enforce through the UN Security Council” is enforce through the UN Security Council… ---
**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 28, 2013, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/451 "2013-02-28T19:12:43Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > HRC and Kerry are two who voted for the October 2002 Resolution because they (a) wanted to force Iraq to be disarmed because they saw it as threat that needed to be settled sooner rather than later, and (b) They saw it as credible that Bush had backed off the automatic war grive by expressing the need to go through the UN, but Bush wanted the authority to wage war to ENFORCE UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION settled right there and then to make the peaceful way be more forceful. They voted for what they saw as the best way to get Iraq disarmed peacefully with what they knew about Bush and Iraq and the UN Secruity Council at the time. (a) and (b) would both have been better served by the Levin Amendment. If enforcing UNSC resolutions is the goal, pass an authorization to enforce UNSC resolutions on the Iraqi matter, full stop, no determination by the President. Problem solved. I know you hold passing the Levin Amendment to be an impossibility, but with a Democratic majority in the Senate, it simply was not out of reach. It just required more judgement and courage than certain Senators proved to possess. They knew at the time that Bush was keen to remove the Hussein regime from Iraq, and thus they should have known that he might use his authorization to achieve that instead of to enforce UNSC resolutions. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I never said they voted against their own personal best judgment. Yes and no, you have discussed the political pressure on the Congress at the time from Bush, the media, and public opinion. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > That is not true. I never said it was a purely Republican Creation. That is why the inspection aspect is so critical. I would assume that there were many Republicans also who were swayed, by Bush’s PEACEMAKER talk but would be willing to give Bush authority to invade or whatever, IF the UN Inspections did not come about like they did. By “your scenario”, I meant a scenario in which the sitting 107th Congress doesn’t pass the war resolution, but the Republican-majority 108th does, the following January of 2003. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Knowing what would happen as Senators cast there vote in Octover is speculative at best. I brought it up because you were limiting a real possibility that could have influenced the vote. > > Reject Bush the Peacemaker in October.. Turn Bush the war monger loose in November… I addressed this in the last post (it’d have been January 7, 2003, by the way, before the new Senate was seated.) The fact that Bush might have been able to get the authorization he wanted from the 108th Congress has no bearing on the responsibilities of the 107th Congress. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And you are wrong that the language did not contain sufficent language to reign Bush in some… “enforce through the UN Security Council” is enforce through the UN Security Council… Read it again: > [@](#): > > 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. “Supports” means nothing, here, this is just a statement by Congress of its thoughts on the matter. This is not a limit on Section 3, below. > [@](#): > > 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. > > (b) Presidential Determination.— In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that— > (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and > (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. Got all that? The President is empowered to do a1 and/or a2 using military force, if he’s willing to sign a document stating that **he** thinks it’s necessary. How is that any restraint at all? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/452 "2013-02-28T21:28:22Z")
> [@](#): > > (a) and (b) would both have been better served by the Levin Amendment -Human Action #451 Today, 02:12 PM 59 The Levin Amendment did not force the UN & Iraq to act immediately because it did not show the threat of force already decided. And the LA was not passable in the House or would be agreed by the White House. Bush likely would rather wait, take the no vote to the voters, than turn US national security decisions on the threat from Iraq to the UN. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/453 "2013-02-28T22:31:49Z")
> [@](#): > > They knew at the time that Bush was keen to remove the Hussein regime from Iraq, and thus they should have known that he might use his authorization to achieve that instead of to enforce UNSC resolutions. -Human Action #451 Today, 02:12 PM 59 I know you believe separation of powers is supposed to mean, HRC should not have trusted Bush, when he switched to talking peace if given the AUMF to make Iraq comply with UNSC resolutions, but that is an opinion not an established fact. HRC has the prerogative to take the president at his word and expect an ethical obligation for him to keep it. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/454 "2013-02-28T22:37:57Z")
And and… AND! (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. UN Res 1441 was a UNSC Resolution that covered all preceding resolutions that gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply. Now who can tell me that Bush ENFORCED 1441 or did he defy it? That is strong in the UAMF. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/455 "2013-02-28T23:14:28Z")
> [@](#): > > “Supports” means nothing, here, this is just a statement by Congress of its thoughts on the matter. This is not a limit on Section 3, below. -Human Action #451 Today, 02:12 PM 59 > > Quote: > 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. > > Got all that? The President is empowered to do a1 and/or a2 using military force, if he’s willing to sign a document stating that he thinks it’s necessary. How is that any restraint at all? -Human Action #451 Today, 02:12 PM 59 I got all that, but can you explain to me how Bush “ENFORCED all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq”. Far from enforcing them, Bush defied and ignored them, when he forced the abandonment of the inspections produced after UN Res 1441. Bush tried to get the UNSC to declare war for him, but he failed. So there is no way that Bush followed the UAMF… Section 3.2. He blatantly disregarded it. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/456 "2013-03-01T00:21:10Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > It’s not a settled issue, how Congress’ war powers from Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 interact with the President’s status as Commander-in-Chief from Article Two, Section Two. The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the matter beyond [Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer). I understand, and that’s kind of the point. I just got the impression that a repeal of the WPR would somehow not allow the President to commit troops without a Congressional authorization. As in the WPR allows a 60 day free pass - it doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/457 "2013-03-01T02:26:22Z")
> [@](#): > > Got all that? The President is empowered to do a1 and/or a2 using military force, if he’s willing to sign a document stating that he thinks it’s necessary. How is that any restraint aempowered to do a1 and/or a2 using military forcet all? -Human Action #451 Today, 02:12 PM 59 “The President is empowered to do a1 and/or a2 using military force” Why did you add the “or” to “a1 and a2”? The AUMF (Oct 2002) does not have an “or” there. Do you agree there is no “or” there? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/458 "2013-03-01T02:55:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Whether Iran would have conquered Iraq if Congress hadn’t bravely and ignorantly approved a war that was a huge mistake? -Ravenman 02-25-2013 10:21 PM 56p1021. Ravenman was wrong. Congress did not approve a war. The AUMF (Oct 2002) says, and, and, \*\* "AND (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.\*\* And the AUMF (Oct 2002) also said it supports the efforts by the President’s diplomatic efforts which produced, UN Res 1441, which was a UNSC Resolution that covered all preceding resolutions that gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply. So Congress authorized war to enforce “all” UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq. Res 1441 was part of ‘all’ and Bush DID NOT ENFORCE it. Bush defied and ignored it. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/459 "2013-03-01T11:04:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But it would seem out of order for Congress to impeach the president for doing something it specifically authorized him to do. -054a1139 Congress did not authorize use of force outside of, or in defiance of ENFORCING UNSC Resolutions., If you say they did not require that, show the language in the UAMF. If you believe Bush was in fact ENFORCING UNSC Resolutions when he invaded Iraq, show me where the UNSC has ever advised or determined that? ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/460 "2013-03-01T11:41:04Z")
**NotfooledbyW** : it would be helpful if you would include the username in the quotes you’re arguing against. You’re making me scroll up to see WHO omitted the word “or” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759.md?page=24)