# 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:** 26
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/501 "2013-03-02T21:50:14Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote: (-Human Action 02-28-2013 02:12 PM 059p0212.h) > > 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. Posted by Human Action 02-28-2013 02:12 PM 059p0212.h. > > 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 02-28-2013 02:12 PM 059p0212.h Paragraph 3.a is clearly the statement of authorization for military action in order to 1) defend and (2) enforce. Paragraph 3.b regards the Presidential Determination in connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection 3.a to use force concerning sub-paragraph (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means. You have not explained how the exercise of the authority granted in subsection 3.a to use force would be modifiec because Bush had a choice to fill out the paperwork to Congress on whether he determined to end diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either because it will not adequately protect the national security of the United States or is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. With either determination or both submitted to Congress, Bush was still authorized to invade Iraq to protect the national security of the USA, and , not “or” to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions. That is why getting UN Resolution 1441 passed and inspections working plays into what Bush didn’t do. He did not ‘enforce’ UN Security Council resolutions… he defied the last and most active one. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/502 "2013-03-02T22:07:30Z")
> [@](#): > > “I mean you are misinterpreting the statute” -Human Action #500 Today, 03:42 PM And you have authority to make that determination because…? I have not inserted “or” into the key authorization subsection that uses “and” because my interpretation does not need to do that. I am also fine with the ‘or’ in the Determination on Peaceful efforts subsection because it does not negate that both determinations are what Congress expected from Bush IF war became necessary because the peaceful efforts failed. The peaceful efforts did not come close to failing and that is the real point that Bush decided entirely on his own to abandon them - Not Congress.. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/503 "2013-03-03T11:34:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Surely you can’t be the only one to find the war illegal under domestic law. Why not cite someone else who does? -Human Action #500 Today, 03:42 PM. I am not arguing that the US invasion is illegal under domestic law. I am pointing out that there were restraints placed on Bush within the language of the UAMF that was passed by Congress. I disagree with your contention that there were no restraints contained in language by US Lawmakers, that at the time, (a) intended to give the President the authority to use force IF NECESSARY because their judgment was that it was as Bush was saying, ‘a way to keep the peace’. And (b) because you hold an unprecedented lack of expectation for a longstanding American value when you submit that there should be little expectation that the President’s word means little; that a US Senator in deciding matters of crisis and/or war should not trust the President to keep his word. Those Senators should somehow know when a Commander in Chief/US President is lying or trying to deceive them. The ‘restraint’ issue in the document is certainly arguable and my points have plenty of merit. However, the trust issue is a matter of opinion, that cannot be settled easily one way or the other. However I expect that the trust issue has some of its foundation on your need to dismiss the existence of ‘restraints on Bush’ in the AUMF. And I see a weakness in your argument on the restraints, that comes from this statement: > [@](#): > > 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 02-28-2013 02:12 PM 059p0212.h To improve our knowledge about all that happened I believe we must look at all aspects and conditions and language of documents and the recorded speeches of all involved and elimiate prejudices from all angles. I could care less if Bush were found to be in violation of U.S. Domestic Law. I care that it is and there exists, a myth that pervades the public’s and pundit’s and news person’s perception\*\* that Congress VOTED FOR WAR.\*\* They did not to the best of their ability in a time of crisis and legitimate concern about a threat to our national security VOTE FOR WAR. \*\*They voted for WAR if NECESSARY \*\*and they put language in the AUMF they thought best would bring about a peaceful solution, that clearly makes it clear that the President of the USA was a lying conniving SOB when he gave his word prior to the invasion and since, that he would 'exhaust all peaceful efforts to avoid war… as should ‘go without out saying’ or having to put into an agreement between the President and Congress. Bush violated international law when he decided on his own to forcibly abandon the UN inspections that resulted from UN Resolution 1441. When he did that he broke his word to Senator Clinton and Senator Kerry and many others and to me. Breaking his word on a complex issue is not in my mind grounds for impeachment or censure. But there are grounds that promote and support those few Americans that were sworn into high office as well, to uphold and to DEFEND the Constitution of the USA and who voted in a way that you vehemently disagree. So when it was at a time that US Senators and House members were legitimately concerned about national security, it is not fair or proper or right to hold the Congress Members accountable for Bush’s blatant abuse and misuse of his high office and the respect that office commands. That is an explanation of why I make the points I do, and it should not be construed as an argument that I wish to make a legal case that Bush violated US domestic law. I am not making that case. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/504 "2013-03-03T12:14:55Z")
> [@](#): > > 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 02-28-2013 02:12 PM \*\*059p0212.b > 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. **-Ntfldbw 02-28-2013 05:31 PM** 059p0531 Does anyone think that is unusual or ‘not normal’ to expect the President of the United States when engaged in direct discussions with sitting U.S. Senators to keep his word on a matter of pre-emptive war in a time when there were legitmate concern for a specific threat to our national security? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/505 "2013-03-03T12:39:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Thanks to those who have supplied a sampling of the types of laws that the Bush Administration could be subjected to, but it’s also incomprehensible that such laws might not exist. IOW, to refute John Mace’s hijack of this hijack, their behavior should serve as a model of exactly the sort of behavior that should be forbidden under international law (and as Dick Dastardly and tagos have shown, ARE forbidden under international law.) To get off the hijack, the Maddow show provided actual evidence that these men (and Condi–who can forget Condi) searched for false pretexts to begin a war of aggression, and when they had none just made it up. None of them should ever breathe free air again–they should die in shackles for their crimes against humanity. -pseudotriton ruber ruber #015 02-19-2013 07:02 AM 50a0702. All Iraq invasion myths work pretty much in conjunction with one another. The need to differentiate 2003 USA’s invasion of Iraq from the 1939 invasion of Poland produce the Bushie promoted myth that “The world is better off with the elimination of Saddam Hussein”. I wonder therefore if the myth that has deeply settled in across the globe that the US Congress VOTED FOR WAR feeds a perception across the entire planet, that All Americans were war crazed fanatics that wanted to eliminate Saddam Hussein for oil and their elected leaders all VOTED FOR WAR, so it is very unlikely to those outside the US and UK that seeking justice for war crimes against humanity in Iraq in accordance with international law is even worth the bother? ---
**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:** [March 3, 2013, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/506 "2013-03-03T14:02:07Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And you have authority to make that determination because…? The same authority you have, that of a layperson on the Internet. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I am not arguing that the US invasion is illegal under domestic law. I am pointing out that there were restraints placed on Bush within the language of the UAMF that was passed by Congress. Ok, what were those restraints, then? Did Bush act in accordance with them? If not, then the war was illegal. If yes, then clearly the restraints were not sufficient to prevent a needless war, were they? The only restraint I see is that Bush had to supply a written determination, and that force was limited to Iraq. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And (b) because you hold an unprecedented lack of expectation for a longstanding American value when you submit that there should be little expectation that the President’s word means little; that a US Senator in deciding matters of crisis and/or war should not trust the President to keep his word. The longstanding American value is separation of powers, not blind trust. You’re describing a dictatorship, where power is vested in one man and we little people just have to trust that he has our best interests at heart. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Those Senators should somehow know when a Commander in Chief/US President is lying or trying to deceive them. You’re the one who’s so convinced that Bush was lying. I think a reasonable case can be made (and HRC backs me up on this) that he was just badly mistaken. Senators should be aware that humans, even Presidents, lie and make mistakes. Question: would you support Congress passing a law authorizing the President alone to exercise all of Congress’ powers under the Constitution on their behalf? Why or why not? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/507 "2013-03-03T16:45:19Z")
> [@](#): > > The longstanding American value is separation of powers, not blind trust. You’re describing a dictatorship, where power is vested in one man and we little people just have to trust that he has our best interests at heart. -Human Action #506 Today, 09:02 AM You are arguing in opposition to an advocate of ‘blind trust’, but that writer is not me. So please stick to defending against my positions as I convey them here. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/508 "2013-03-03T18:26:57Z")
> [@](#): > > I am not arguing that the US invasion is illegal under domestic law. I am pointing out that there were restraints placed on Bush within the language of the UAMF that was passed by Congress. -Ntfldbw 03-02-2013 05:07 PM 062p0507 > [@](#): > > Ok, what were those restraints, then? -Human Action #506 Today, 09:02 AM 062a0902 As I have stated numerous times. **3.a.2 was the specific restraint**. Force was being authorized if Bush determined it was necessary in conjunction with 3.a.1 to protect the national security of the United States of America by enforcing \*\*all relevant UN Resolutions \*\*with regard to Iraq. Key word being **‘all’** as in the potential that something like what Bush said he wanted came along and that was 1441. Lawmakers cannot write specifics about ‘restraints’ that are tied to the future, but are relevant to the written law at the time. > [@](#): > > Ok, what were those restraints, then? Did Bush act in accordance with them? If not, then the war was illegal. If yes, then clearly the restraints were not sufficient to prevent a needless war, were they? -Human Action #506 Today, 09:02 AM 062a0902 Bush, and Bush alone, did not act in accordance with the restraint that is in the JAMF Authorization Subsection as I listed above. Bush did act however in activevly seeking and obtaining UN Resolution 1441 which became an active UN Resolution and he obligated himself to it. It was Bush’s lone and separate defiance of UN Resolution 1441 that makes the US and UK invasion of Iraq illegal under international law, but not necessary illegal under US domestic law. And the latter is because Bush did not commit a war crime or a crime against humanity against the domestic US population; he committed a crime against the humanity that were living in Iraq. The restraint that was in the language of the JAMF was sufficient to prevent a war once the UN inspections began to clearly work, and on the day that Iraq offered to let the CIA and US military come into Iraq and work alongside UN inspectors to verify that WMD did not exist Bush. There should be no onus on Congress to expect that the President of the United States of America would be so bold as to defy the peaceful mechanism for avoidance of war that he himself worked to set up. The Onus is on Bush for defying UN Resolution 1441, and forcing the unwarrented abandonment of peaceful inspections and then starting a war. > [@](#): > > The only restraint I see is that Bush had to supply a written determination, and that force was limited to Iraq. -Human Action #506 Today, 09:02 AM 062a0902 Correction: The only restraint you ‘want’ to see is as the one you are expressing above that serves you big picture view of the entire disaster. My bigger concern is that Bush told us on the night he announced the US invasion of Iraq would start, > [@](#): > > ): Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. > > \*\*America tried to work with the United Nations \*\*to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. and many have swallowed that as true. Many have been fooled by Dubya and the Press that were stenographers for the Bush Admin’s drive toward this war when Bush said Congress VOTED FOR THIS WAR… and He tried to work with the UN. It was 18 months or so when it became official that Iraq did not have the WMD that Bush claimed… With so many Americans focused upon the combat our troops ended up fighting … there came no challenged the lies that Bush told during an announcement of war. The one being focussed upon here is the lie in the form of a half-truth. > [@](#): > > Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. And to me a half truth is a lie as no other lie. And I’m sorry. I do have higher expections for the president of the United States NOT to engage in such shenigans and deceptions when he/or she is about to order actions where innocent people and our troops will die. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/509 "2013-03-03T20:05:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Mr. Secretary, when the President had the congressional leadership down to the Cabinet room about 2 weeks ago, he asked a number of us questions. And when he turned and asked me my view, I indicated to him that I was prepared to be with him, assuming several things. **One, that he continued to pursue the course he was pursing at the United Nations and exhaust those possible avenues** … -Senator Kerry to Secretary of State Colin Powel during HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE; ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION; SEPTEMBER 25 AND 26, 2002 I do not accept that a US Senator asking Secretary Powell the Secretary of State, questions at a Senate Hearing, and that the Senator’s upon hearing the answers on behalf of the President, must be compelled by, Seperation of Powers, to expect the President is lying and being deceptive to them. Why have hearings at all if that is the case. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/510 "2013-03-03T22:57:13Z")
> [@](#): > > “You’re the one who’s so convinced that Bush was lying. I think a reasonable case can be made\*\* (and HRC backs me up on this)\*\* that he was just badly mistaken.” -Human Action #506 Today, 09:02 AM I would definitely like to see where HRC backs you up on that. On Meet the Press in Janyary 2008 she said essentially lied to her before the vote: > [@](#): > > MR. RUSSERT: A vote for war is a very important vote. > > SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, Tim, we can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. You know, when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war, when I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, “if you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job,” I was told that’s exactly what we intended to do. Now, I think it’s important to take a look at the entire context here. If Senator Obama’s going to get credit for his speech and his position against the war, then he deserves to be asked what happened in '03, '04, '05, '06 and '07. I voted for the authorization… ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/511 "2013-03-04T02:32:33Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s inconceivable to me that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld haven’t been tried for war crimes. If not them, who? If not now, when? **-pseudotriton ruber ruber** 02-19-2013 02:07 AM 050a0207 > > Not that we haven’t been over this a zillion times before, but what specific statute would you have them tried for? \*\*-John Mace \*\*02-19-2013 02:25 AM 50a0225 > > Crimes Against Peace Quote: (-tagos 02-19-2013 04:51 AM 50a0451) A crime against peace, in international law, refers to “planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing” -\*\*posted by tagos \*\*02-19-2013 04:51 AM 50a0451. > > “As for the “crimes against peace”, you’d have to try every Congress critter, including HR Clinton and John Kerry, who authorized the war. \*\*-John Mace \*\*02-19-2013 09:46 AM 50a0946. > > That is not so. The war crime would be 'kicking the UN inspectors out to start a war.” Every Congress critter including Senator’s Clinton and Kerry voted in earnest to force Iraq and the UN to resume inspections. They would not be charged with the crime of kicking out inspectors because it was ‘Bush the Decider’ that did that entirely on his own. -Ntfldbw 02-22-2013 10:52 PM 053p1052.a I am waiting for someone to explain how it was that Senators Clinton and Kerry voted to have Bush seek a UN Resolution to resume inspections, get one namely 1441, and then kick the inspectors out. If it was a war crime in international law to plan, prepare and initiate the war of aggression against Iraq; and because it is readily obvious that Bush and Company planned for war and deceived Congress to get authorization on the insistence that it was only IF NECESSARY, then there is indictable charges applicable to Senators Clinton or Kerry, since they were part of the Congress that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld etc deliberately plotted and connived to deceive. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/512 "2013-03-04T09:40:28Z")
> [@](#): > > “They did vote for war. Read section (b) of the resolution: It says the President may attack Iraq “as HE determines to be necessary.” Not as a impartial person or body thinks, it invests the decision for war in the President alone. That’s a vote for war." \*\*-Ravenman \*\*02-20-2013 07:29 AM 051a0729.a > > They did not vote for war. There is much more to the language than “as (Bush) determines to be necessary” and that is because the AUMF (Oct2002) is the same as any legal contract. The President being the top law officer of the land has certain obligations to act with propriety, honor and integrity to the facts specifically with regard to DECIDING if an offensive war is NECESSARY." \*\*-Ntfldbw \*\*02-20-2013 11:10 PM 051p1110.a > **If there is anyone who says that invading Iraq when Bush did, by kicking UN inspectors out after just a few months of doing their work, was NECESSARY, would have to be absolutely insane?** \*\*-Ntfldbw \*\*02-20-2013 11:10 PM 051p1110.b > I hope you are not mistaken in thinking that those of us like Ravenman and me were ever in favor the Iraq war. We were not. However, just because we disapprove of “x”, that does not mean we will automatically agree with mistaken arguments that are also critical of “x”. \*\*-John Mace \*\*02-23-2013 12:22 AM 054a0022.c I wonder if I could get straight answer from anyone to this question if I rephrase it just a bit: (-Ntfldbw 063a) …Is there anyone who says invading Iraq when Bush did, by kicking UN inspectors out after just a few months of doing their work, was NECESSARY and therefore NOT INSANE? ---
**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:** [March 4, 2013, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/513 "2013-03-04T13:32:08Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You are arguing in opposition to an advocate of ‘blind trust’, but that writer is not me. So please stick to defending against my positions as I convey them here. I don’t know what else to call the idea of giving a president with a laundry list of reasons for a war, the power to start said war, and then trusting him not to do it. This wasn’t some brilliant con by Bush, his feelings on the matter were quite clear and quite public. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > As I have stated numerous times. 3.a.2 was the specific restraint. Force was being authorized if Bush determined it was necessary in conjunction with 3.a.1 to protect the national security of the United States of America by enforcing all relevant UN Resolutions with regard to Iraq. > > Key word being ‘all’ as in the potential that something like what Bush said he wanted came along and that was 1441. Lawmakers cannot write specifics about ‘restraints’ that are tied to the future, but are relevant to the written law at the time. 1. 687 and 678 were also relevant UNSC resolutions. 2. Lawmakers certain can tie restraints to future events; that’s what the Levin Amendment did. Even something like “enforce all future UNSC resolutions with regard to Iraq” would have probably sufficed; it’s not like 687 and 678 weren’t available to Congress to see what “all revelant resolutions” would encompass. Are you sure you’re not in favor of the Levin Amendment? You sure seem to be. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > There should be no onus on Congress to expect that the President of the United States of America would be so bold as to defy the peaceful mechanism for avoidance of war that he himself worked to set up. You seem incredibly idealistic about the process (Presidents never lie!) and incredibly cynical about the outcome (Bush lied, and might be insane). I find this odd. As to the idea that Congress should trust the president… [Teapot Dome scandal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teapot_Dome_scandal) [Iran-Contra affair](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-contra) [Watergate scandal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate) But a President would never lie to get us into war, would he? [Gulf of Tonkin incident](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#Distortion_of_the_event) > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Correction: The only restraint you ‘want’ to see is as the one you are expressing above that serves you big picture view of the entire disaster. Pot, meet kettle. ---
**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:** [March 4, 2013, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/514 "2013-03-04T13:40:04Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I do not accept that a US Senator asking Secretary Powell the Secretary of State, questions at a Senate Hearing, and that the Senator’s upon hearing the answers on behalf of the President, must be compelled by, Seperation of Powers, to expect the President is lying and being deceptive to them. Why have hearings at all if that is the case. Ever heard the saying “trust, but verify”? That is, don’t _expect_ that the President is lying (or mistaken, a possibility you refuse to address), _plan for_ the possibility. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I would definitely like to see where HRC backs you up on that. I already quoted it in this thread: [HRC on Larry King, April 20 2004](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Iraq_War) > [@](#): > > 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." > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I am waiting for someone to explain how it was that Senators Clinton and Kerry voted to have Bush seek a UN Resolution to resume inspections, get one namely 1441, and then kick the inspectors out. You’ll be waiting a while then, since no one here has claimed that. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > If it was a war crime in international law to plan, prepare and initiate the war of aggression against Iraq; and because it is readily obvious that Bush and Company planned for war and deceived Congress to get authorization on the insistence that it was only IF NECESSARY, then there is indictable charges applicable to Senators Clinton or Kerry, since they were part of the Congress that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld etc deliberately plotted and connived to deceive. Possibly, but I already explained to you why there will be no ICC action on this matter, no neither Bush not Kerry needs to lose sleep over it. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Is there anyone who says invading Iraq when Bush did, by kicking UN inspectors out after just a few months of doing their work, was NECESSARY and therefore NOT INSANE? “Insane” doesn’t follow “unnecessary”. It was not necessary, nor was it insane. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/515 "2013-03-04T17:08:23Z")
> [@](#): > > You seem incredibly idealistic about the process (Presidents never lie!) and incredibly cynical about the outcome (Bush lied, and might be insane). I find this odd. -Human Action #514 > Today, 08:40 AM Where have I written that I believe ‘Presidents never lie’ or anything close? Of course there have been some that have lied, but most have integrity. I am arguing that it is a matter of expectations. If there must be constant vigilance between parties due to separation if powers that one or both sides are lying most of the time, then there is no reason for the separated powers to meet and discuss much. Reality to me is there is expectation at that level, that the word and the facts are good. A man is only as good as his word is a big part if being President or one if 100 US Senators. What I am trying to tell you is that the reality is that it is a very rare event and may have never happened at all, (maybe Gulf of Tonkin, maybe not) wherin a US Seneator conducts a hearing and asks the Administation specific questions about a very serious matter and gets a multitude of direct and clear answers, such as the one cited below, and to find out later that those answers turned out to be bogus and lies. You brought (Gulf if Tonkin) into this discussion for comparison; so the burden is on you to show what compares. > [@](#): > > Mr. Secretary, when the President had the congressional leadership down to the Cabinet room about 2 weeks ago, he asked a number of us questions. And when he turned and asked me my view, I indicated to him that I was prepared to be with him, assuming several things. One, that he continued to pursue the course he was pursing at the United Nations and exhaust those possible avenues… -Senator Kerry to Secretary of State Colin Powel during HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE; ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION; SEPTEMBER 25 AND 26, 2002 ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/516 "2013-03-04T17:27:26Z")
> [@](#): > > “You’re the one who’s so convinced that Bush was lying. I think a reasonable case can be made (and HRC backs me up on this) that he was just badly mistaken.” -Human Action #506 Today, 09:02 AM I have not claimed Bush lied about WMD intelligence, if course he could have genuinely believe the intel prior to October 2002. The lie he told Senators Clinton and Kerry and Hagel, that I am asking about, is that he intended to continue pursuit of a new Resolution at the UN which he did, the lie comes when he said he would exhaust all peaceful means, if Iraq and the UN renewed the inspections. It can hardly be a ‘mistake’ to not recognize the inspections and the success they were achieving. Bush lied prior to and after that he wanted to exhaust peaceful means. If you think that was not a lie, the please explain how it was not. Do you mean this: > [@](#): > > During an April 20, 2004 interview on Larry King Live, Clinton was asked about her October 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution. > > Obviously, I’ve thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don’t regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade… The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared. > > But, she said, 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.”[82] ---
**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:** [March 4, 2013, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/517 "2013-03-04T17:44:19Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Where have I written that I believe ‘Presidents never lie’ or anything close? Of course there have been some that have lied, but most have integrity. So it’s acceptable to gamble that the current President was such a man of integrity (or judgement), with a war on the line? Again, the greater the stakes, the greater the burden of responsiblity on all parties. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I am arguing that it is a matter of expectations. If there must be constant vigilance between parties due to separation if powers that one or both sides are lying most of the time, then there is no reason for the separated powers to meet and discuss much. Of course there is, because each must work with the other. Congress can pass laws, but not carry them out. The President can enforce laws, but not create them. Congress can declare wars but not fight them, the President can fight wars but not declare them. And so and so on. They aren’t fiefs that can ignore each other, they are parts of a whole. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Reality to me is there is expectation at that level, that the word and the facts are good. A man is only as good as his word is a big part if being President or one if 100 US Senators. If the facts are assumed to be good, then why does Congress carry out investigations? They do, after all. Because facts, even those presently earnestly, cannot be assumed to be true, particularly when an error would have a great cost (such as a war, for instance). > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > What I am trying to tell you is that the reality is that it is a very rare event and may have never happened at all, (maybe Gulf of Tonkin, maybe not) wherin a US Seneator conducts a hearing and asks the Administation specific questions about a very serious matter and gets a multitude of direct and clear answers, such as the one cited below, and to find out later that those answers turned out to be bogus and lies. 1. Kerry is speaking at a hearing, about an exchange that occuring in a private meeting between the President and Congressional leaders. Just for accuracy’s sake. Kerry didn’t have that exchange with Bush during a hearing. 2. Reagan lied to the Tower Commission, Nixon lied throughout Watergate and resigned as impeachment proceedings were beginning, and Clinton lied to the public and in testimony during the Lewinsky scandal. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You brought (Gulf if Tonkin) into this discussion for comparison; so the burden is on you to show what compares. Ok. It’s not difficult, after all. A president is eager to engage in warfare in a distant region of the world, which poses no direct threat to the U.S., for reasons that he believes are valid. Trouble is, he needs Congress to pass a resolution authorizing the use of military force. To secure that authorization, he either lets himself believe obviously false information, or lies, to Congress and to the American people. Overly-broad authorization in hand, said President engages in a decade-plus, costly war with dubious benefits and great costs. The U.S. had been down this road before, and we fell for it again. This time, the boogeyman was terrorists instead of Communists, and the death toll wasn’t as severe, but it’s the same damn thing. ---
**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:** [March 4, 2013, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/518 "2013-03-04T17:50:00Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I have not claimed Bush lied about WMD intelligence, if course he could have genuinely believe the intel prior to October 2002. > > The lie he told Senators Clinton and Kerry and Hagel, that I am asking about, is that he intended to continue pursuit of a new Resolution at the UN which he did, the lie comes when he said he would exhaust all peaceful means, if Iraq and the UN renewed the inspections. > > It can hardly be a ‘mistake’ to not recognize the inspections and the success they were achieving. > > Bush lied prior to and after that he wanted to exhaust peaceful means. > > If you think that was not a lie, the please explain how it was not. I don’t know if it was a lie or not. If you’re convinced Iraq has mobile labs, and UNMOVIC isn’t finding them after several months, you might reasonably conclude that UNMOVIC wasn’t up to the task, and that Hussein was concealing his biological weapons labs because he intended to use biological weapons soon. The only way to halt this occurance might be to invade Iraq. That is, in Bush’s opinion peaceful means had been exhausted, if the inspections weren’t finding the things Bush believed existed. Trouble was, they did not. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Do you mean this: Yes, that is what I quoted. She’s not accusing Bush of lying, she’s accusing him of being wrong, due to errors in thinking. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/519 "2013-03-04T18:06:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Is there anyone who says invading Iraq when Bush did, by kicking UN inspectors out after just a few months of doing their work, was NECESSARY and therefore NOT INSANE? -Ntfldbw #512 Today, 04:40 AM. > [@](#): > > It was not necessary, nor was it insane. -Human Action #514 > Today, 08:40 AM So with all the private and public announcements by Bush, that he wanted to exhaust all peaceful means in order to avoid war, but achieve certainty that Iraq was disarmed of WMD through diplomatic means in accordance with the UN inspection process; you are stating that when Bush kicked the succeeding UN inspectors out to start a war; that his decision was a sane decision? Wow! ---
**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:** [March 4, 2013, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/520 "2013-03-04T18:26:19Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > So with all the private and public announcements by Bush, that he wanted to exhaust all peaceful means in order to avoid war, but achieve certainty that Iraq was disarmed of WMD through diplomatic means in accordance with the UN inspection process; you are stating that when Bush kicked the succeeding UN inspectors out to start a war; that his decision was a sane decision? > > Wow! Yes. You think Bush was insane in March of 2003? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759.md?page=27)