“Is it inconceivable to you that LBJ wasn’t tried for war crimes? How about FDR?” - John Mace 02-19-2013 02:25 AM.
You like ‘citing’ things, so How about ‘citing’ when FDR or LBJ kicked UN Inspectors out of the country about to be invaded because the government was proactively cooperating with them.
Then cite the agency or ruling or election by which you have obtained your power to rule.
Those were questions, not statements. Do you not know the difference? Why would I need a cite to ask a question?
Who said anything about ruling?
I hereby designate John Mace to speak for me whenever I’m too busy or too smart to participate in this thread.
“There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. “ -Donald Rumsfeld Press Briefing April 25, 2003.
On March 17, 2003 GW Bush said that, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments **leaves no doubt **that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
So how was it that Rummy did not know where or how to get to, “the most lethal weapons ever devised” if he and Bush had intelligence that left no doubt.
Doesn’t no doubt mean Rummy could have sent the troops to get right after them?
“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." Originally Posted by Raven+man (Post 16026154)
“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 JAUMF (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.
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?
Cite?
Cite?
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”.
Is this wrong or is it not true in any way, John+Mace or Raven+Man?
“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.
No, it’s not true, in the sense that “true” means something objectively definable. However, Congress has the power to impeach the president if, in their judgement, the president did not act thusly. That is not a matter of truth, but of politics, policy and personal judgement.
If you asked me if I would have supported impeachment proceedings against Bush over the Iraq War, that is a matter of opinion and not fact. But my opinion is yes, I would.
Why would you do that, if you thought he was acting in good faith?
Is it true in your heart John+Mace. What do you personally think. Congress is not going to impeach Bush. There was no way ever in a million years that a Republican House of Representatives and the newly sworn in Republican Senate were going to impeach Bush over the lies he told to get American ground troops caught up in a quaqmire of Iraq.
I want to know what YOU think and WHY YOU think it.
If you think Bush was wrong to decide to kick inspectors out sometime in March 2003, why are you so belligerent and opposed to what I am writing here?
Going back a bit; what was this about?
“The JAUMF(Oct2002) was the same as with any legal contract. The President is obligated and expected to fulfill the contract with propriety, integrity and with respect to the resounding purpose of the contract.
And the purpose of subject contract was to exhaust all peaceful means possible prior to resorting to war.
Bush did none of that.” -Ntfldbw 02-22-2013 12:25 PM (Post 16033870)
“So, sue him.” – John+Mace 02-22-2013 12:27 PM.
And please try to stay focused on the issue since my choice of the word contract is based upon the first three definitions which tell us that a contract is any kind of basic “AGREEMENT BETWEEN MORE THAN TWO PARTIES.” I meant nothing about quid-pro-quo or judicial rulings or business law ow whatever it is you injected into this discussion.
“Is it inconceivable to you that LBJ wasn’t tried for war crimes? How about FDR?” -John Mace 02-19-2013 02:25 AM.
"Was Yugoslavia a threat to the US when he spent almost 3 months bombing the bejesus out of part of that country?” -John+Mace 02-19-2013 09:59 AM.
Military engagement had already been started before LBJ became commander in chief. Don’t worry I protested that war fiercely and equally under LBJ and Nixon so I am not defending any decisions they made with respect to the war in Vietnam. However LBJ as a war criminal does not compare to the matter of starting a preemptive war against a nation that was in throes of being peacefully disarmed and verified of the absense of WMD’s without bloodshed is a completely different matter.
FDR? That is just too rediculous a question and therefore deserves no response other than to point out how silly it is to try compare Bush’s invasion of Iraq to Hitlers’s invasion of Poland and France etc … And Japan’s bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Allied response to all that offensive war from Germany and Japan.
"Was Yugoslavia a threat to the US when he spent almost 3 months bombing the bejesus out of part of that country?” -John+Mace 02-19-2013 09:59 AM.
Under International Law there are two separate resons for justification for using military force.
The first of course is the inherent right of self-defense such as was used when Bush sent the Special Forces Units into Afghanistan to topple the regime that harbored the terrorists that attacke US Soil on September 11, 2001.
The second is that when military action must be taken to stop genocide which has conditions also that must be met. It must be tactically and logistically possible to ‘in the judgment of world leaders’ to effectively save more lives than military action would take.
Clinton’s bombing of Yugoslavia met the second requirement and had a partial reliance upon the first. That is the potential for the conflict to spread further around the region thus causing more instability and human suffering.
So again, Bush had neither of those two principles to carry moral or ethical justification for his decision to kick UN inspectors out and disturb the peace there by promoting miltiary conflict, actions, killing, destruction and war.
“Is it inconceivable to you that LBJ wasn’t tried for war crimes? How about FDR?” - John Mace 02-19-2013 02:25 AM.
You like ‘citing’ things, so How about ‘citing’ when FDR or LBJ kicked UN Inspectors out of the country about to be invaded because the government was proactively cooperating with them.”- NotfooledbyW 02-22-2013 11:48 PM. ” (Post 16035851)
“Those were questions, not statements. Do you not know the difference? Why would I need a cite to ask a question?” -John+Mace 02-22-2013 11:54 PM.
Regardless of whether it was a question or a statement you sought to make a comparsion of GWB’s decision to invade Iraq to LBJ, FDR, and WJF, all Democrat’s who were presidents that had to make decisions about war or use of military force.
So since you stepped into that ‘comparison’ mode, you don’t get a mulligan or escape for putting your comparison into the form of a question, just because you are incapable of defending you false and unjustifable comparision in your response.
There’s another nice diversion though.
You are setting a pattern up that I have observed in those who are belligerent to my viewpoint.
“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.
I hope you are not mistaken in thinking that those of us like Raven+man 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.
Are arguments that are critical of Bush’s terrible decision to kick UN inspectors out of Iraq so he could bomb, and kill and maim innocent human beings because violence was to him a better way to find out about WMD than the peaceful way Iraq and the UN were doing it, **mistaken **because they are critical of that fiasco or because there is something untrue about that argument?
You are presenting to me strange and seemingly to me at least an inchoherent viewpoint.
You did not favor the Iraq war going in and have not changed your mind since. That is identical to mine. But you are critical of those who are critical of the man who made that decision entirely on his own and of his own volition at a time when it was plain as day that Iraq was cooperating with UN inspectors as they had never ever done before.
You do not dispute what I am saying is true or correct, but you charge that it is ‘mistaken argument’.
What is mistaken about my argument?
The President has the obligation to act within the bounds of the law. There is no additional obligation to adhere to an undefined concept like “honor,” because it is a totally subjective concept. So long as the President acts within the confines of the text of the law and the Constitution, he is doing his job.
That doesn’t mean he’s doing his job well. Someone can do stupid, but legal, things. Like, oh, say… invading Iraq.
In my opinion, you’ve divided the world into people who agree fully with everything you say, and Bush apologists. Since we are neither, it may be confusing.
We agree that the war was a mistake. But you rely on incorrect historical facts (Saddam was completely transparent about his CW program starting right after 9/11 right through the beginning of the war); and some total legal nonsense (that a war resolution is a contract). Just because we reach the same conclusion, why should y we point out that those arguments are totally wrong? If I said that I knew that Saddam Hussein was actually the reborn Christ, therefore the war was wrong, would you feel compelled to agree with me?
NotfooledbyW, please do us the courtesy of glancing at the bb code this message board uses. If you could use quotes for others’ statements, it would make your posts easier to read. Thanks in advance.
As for this contract tangent, you wrote:
What is the source of this obligation the president is under? If you meant a moral obligation, then that’s your opinion. If you meant a legal obligation, of the sort enforced by courts of law, you are mistaken (unless you can prove otherwise). Your use to “legal contract” above certainly gave the impression that you referred to a legal obligation, could you clarify is that is what you meant?
This is true. However, Hussein’s past actions contributed to uncertainty about whether or not Iraq possessed or was manufacturing WMDs. I feel this should be acknowledged. It doesn’t alone justify the invasion, but it was a factor. You can’t just call off a bluff like that immediately, after all, and there was just enough resistance to the November 2002 inspections as to fan the flames of suspicion.
On further reflection, I probably wouldn’t support impeachment for that matter, but not because the president might have been acting on “good faith”. If he had initiated the war without Congressional approval, then impeach his ass. But it would seem out of order for Congress to impeach the president for doing something it specifically authorized him to do. There were plenty of Democrats and a few Republicans who were either brave enough, smart enough, or who actually read the full Intelligence Reports and who voted “no”.
As for this contract tangent, you wrote: (-Human+Action 02-23-2013 09:42 AM):
“The JAUF(Oct2002) was the same as with any legal contract. The President is obligated and expected to fulfill the contract with propriety, integrity and with respect to the resounding purpose of the contract.” - Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW.
“When Senator Clinton voted to give President Bush the authority in the JAUMF (Oct2002) to use military force against Iraq, Bush was under no obligation to ‘honestly’ and ‘faithfully’ make the determination to do so based upon the language contained therein. Is that what you are telling us?” - Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW.
“What is the source of this obligation the president is under?” -Human+Action 02-23-2013 09:42 AM.
The President’s duty to the people who elected him and those that did not vote for him to be faithful to the Constitution; The President’s oath of office; Common Sense and Decency; and the SACRED promise to NEVER, EVER, NEVER, NEVER, EVER send US Troops into harm’s way unless it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY and there is NO OTHER MEANS to AVOID Protecting the nation’s national security, and the definition of the word ‘contract’. And that definition as I intended it as written is to do with a legal and binding agreement between Congress and the Administration, nothing more than that.
“We agree that the war was a mistake. But you rely on incorrect historical facts (Saddam was completely transparent about his CW program starting right after 9/11 right through the beginning of the war); …” -Raven+man 02-23-2013 09:34 AM.
First you need to be honest, correct and exact about what I write.
I wrote this:
No Bluffing by SH after 9/11. - NotfooledbyW 02-22-2013 01:32 PM
He did stop Bluffing that he had WMD … after the 9/11 attacks.
No one here has shown anything different.
Quite clever the way you re-wrote the argument and acuse me of being wrong.