This whole “contract” hijack is a red herring. If you really want to discuss it, open a thread dedicated to that notion. State your premise, and back it up. See if you are able to convince anyone.
Why the “But, he had the authorization from Congress to excecute the war”?
I have never said he didn’t have that.
And since you didn’t care if SH had WMD or not, I presume you were not a US Senator in 2002, and therefore you were not confronted with a decision about what to do about the Bush/Cheney push for war against Iraq in the post-9/11 attack environment.
You didn’t have to figure out in October 2002 whether Bush would ‘get his war’ beyond the November Mid-Term elections since he really started the PR Campaign SELL a Military strike against Iraq on Labor Day weekend.
“From a marketing point of view, you don’t roll out new products in August.” --White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, on why the Bush administration waited until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on war against Iraq, “New York Times” interview, Sept. 7, 2002 (Source)
But at the same time Bush was telling Congress he wanted to resolve the WMD issue peacefully through the UN by getting a new strengthened resolution passed that would force Iraq to submit to inspections.
Bush told members of Congress that he needed an authorization to use military force at the time in order to convince the UN and Iraq to do something.
It could not be watered down too much and that is how the one he got emerged.
The potential for missing the opportunity to force the inspectors back in may or may not have passed if the November mid-terms were held without a firm Congressional Statement that Military Force would be used IF the UN and Iraq did not get their act together.
So a US Senator from the State hit the hardest by terrorists had to decide if Bush’s commitment to go through the UN was real and if it was the better choice to avert war if the UN could become the means of disarming Iraq instead of Bombs and Invasion.
I accept that HRC’s intent and decision was sincere. Same as with Kerry.
You may disagree. However you are not entitled to discount ALL that happened during those tumultious months from Labor Day on in 2002.
There was a lot that had to be absorbed on the first year anniversary of the attacks on 9/11.
It is quite pompous for some Americans to pretend they have the only comprehension of what took place and criticize those who were in positions of power.
Then drop it — You proved nothing and it does not matter.
Can you state that “Kicking the Inspectors Out” was the mistake?
If you didn’t care if Iraq had WMD in 2002 when there were no inspectors in Iraq, then you were quite alone and you could count Members of Congress on your feet and toes to find some that didn’t care.
I think it was legitimate in a post 9/11 environment to demand that Saddam Hussein be brought into compliance with his disarmament agreement with the UN.
You can disagree with me on that but you disagree with a hell of a lot people on that.
Saddam Hussein complied starting in November 2002 like he never did before.
The Strong Use of Force vote worked for its intended purpose.
The only reasion it didn’t work in the end is on the shoulders of ONLY ONE MAN.
A very flawed man. And a liar.
You asked me if I was “OK” with what Bush did. “OK” can mean any number of things, from did I agree with it to was it legal. I didn’t agree it with, but it was legal.
Hillary never even bothered reading the full intelligence reports herself. Sorry, but I can’t excuse that type of behavior when it comes to a vote for war. That is the most important vote a Senator can ever take, and she didn’t even do her homework.
“America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully.” - GW Bush on March 17, 2003 addressing the nation on the necessity for WAR.
Does anyone think that is a true statement?
Does that excuse Bush for what he did?
Go back and read what I’ve said about Bush and tell me what you think I think. The fact that you would even ask that question tells me you haven’t understood what I’ve been posting.
I never said Bush’s determination to start a war was not legal in terms of the authorization from the US Congress. I am certain it was illegal in terms of international law. But there is the problem of finding a prosecutor against the President of the most powerful superpower the world has ever seen.
But did Bush have the legal authority to start bombing, killing, maiming and spending like hell on borrowed money to disarm Iraq instead of allowing Iraq to be disarmed peacefully.
His ‘legal’ decision was amoral, dishonest, fraudulent and not in the spirit of the JAUMF (Oct2002) that Some Congressmember voted for based upon Bush’s word that his intent was to force Iraq to be disarmed peacefully.
I understand what you are posting and perhaps you have not had this pointed out by anyone else before.
Its the timeline.
You do not consider kicking the inspectors out the MISTAKE.
You consider wanting to disarm Iraq at all the Mistake.
That excuses Bush… from the real mistake he made.
Well, I cited the elements required for a legal contract, and you ignored it, why should John Mace expect any different?
At this point, NotfooledbyW, I have no idea what you’re even arguing. If your point is that the Iraq War was a mistake, I agree. Is your point that Bush’s actions were illegal? If so, why not focus on that aspect?
Is your point that Bush’s action were morally wrong? Then argue that. At present, you’re engaged in a sort of Gish Gallop of anti-Bush, pro-Clinton and Kerry rhetoric with no clear point or thesis statement.
My point is that Bush’s word given to Congess members and we the American people was not worth crap when he used the moral and legal authority of his office to make the case that he needed authorization to use force to resolve Iraq’s WMD matter peacefully.
And you three are in denial of that reality.
When someone says they need the authority to go to war in order to maintain the peace, the natural reaction should be :dubious:.
So, in essence, you think Bush mislead the American people and Congress as to his intentions, and used the authorization Congress gave him to launch a war that was not necessary.
I agree.
This does not absolve Congress of blame, however. They empowered Bush to do exactly what he did, and should not have relied on his, or anyone else’s, ‘word’ on the matter.
That is what I mean by your denial. The inspections were achieved - it was not a war crime to authorize military force by Congress in October 2002 because Iraq was not in compliance with international law.
However by March 2003 Iraq was sufficiently headed to full compliance.
Congress has no accountability for what Bush did in March 2003.
Other than having authorized it, that is.
They also authorized an outcome for peace. The conditions for peace were met within four month’s of the vote. The vote was correct. Bush ignored what the vote achieved. That is not on Congress.
Bush needs to take responsibility for ignoring inspections.
You are giving him a pass.
My Goodness, it looks like everyone will be exonerated for Iraq war after all.
Another hunky-dory ending - all sheep accounted for and wolf’s stomach’s full.
Democracy - Tyranny 1:0
There is no such thing as authorizing peace. Peace is the default. Congress can authorize war.
And Congress for abrogating it’s responsibility for declaring war to Bush
Not all. He bears most of the blame, but not all the blame.
That was supposed to be “Not at all”.
But you know who isn’t to blame? The Congressmen who voted against the AUMF. Those who voted for don’t get to be in the same category as them.