Then why did 23 strongly anti-war senators vote against the authorization for war? Why did all the senators who strongly wanted to invade regardless of UN resolutions or what inspectors found vote for the resolution?
I have great admiration for (former) Senator Russ Feingold, and I highly recommend reading his statement regarding the AUMF.
There is no reason other Senators, such as Clinton and Kerry, could not have taken a similar stand. They didn’t need to worry about re-election to the Senate, but maybe they were too worried about their chances to run for the presidency.
They disagreed and it did not matter because they lost.
The majority vote was correct. Saddam let the inspectors back in and Bush decided to kick them out. So Bush lied and he is the sole blame.
The day a US Senator cannot take the president at his word on avoiding war if possible and there are Americans out there that excuse that - we are in bug trouble.
To say ‘there is no reason’ is to take an absolutist approach on a very complex issue during a complex time.
You have never directly answered whether Bush’s mistake, in your mind, was to kick inspectors out when inspection were working.
You insist that the ONLY mistake made was in October 2002 so you dilute Bush’s mistake into a sea of Congress members who voted the way you don’t agree was right
That is why you deny the ‘peace’ language in the JAUMF (Oct2002).
It fogs up your absolutist position.
I really do not understand what you think you are trying to prove, here.
No one gives G W Bush “a pass” by pointing out that a majority of congresscritters foolishly gave him authorization to take actions that he then used, even if he abused some imaginary “spirit” of the law.
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.
Again, there is no JAUMF. It isn’t a word.
And the idea that there is implied trust between the branches of government is anathema to the Framers. Ever hear of “ambition made to counteract ambition?” The branches are supposed to check each other, not entrust them with gentle men’s agreements.
You are literally the only person I’ve ever heard describe laws as contracts that imply the need for honor and faithfulness. On a related note, let’s say I’m underwater on my mortgage. Do you think I’m prohibited by my honor from walking away from the house and allowing the bank to foreclose?
Where did I do that?
Bush didn’t persuade many in the Senate to ‘join him’ in going to war. That is where you are in denial of reality and perpetuating a myth. And it is a troubling myth that ardent Bush Defenders use and appreciate.
Bush persuaded many in the Senate that he was in favor of disarming Iraq peacefully.
Bush had potential to keep the House and win the Senate and make war on Iraq with the War on Terror authorization that he already had in his pocket.
Then he changed the drive to a drive for a strong UN Resolution just before the vote that would keep war off the table if Saddam let the inspectors come in.
Saddam let the inspectors come in.
Now we are being asked to forget what Bush was saying at the time.
anti-war Democrats and pro-war Republicans both say the same thing…
Bush asked Congress to simply go to war and Congress laid down for him.
That is not true.
Why do so many on both sides say the same thing when it is not true.
When you refuse to identify kicking the inspectors out as a mistake.
Raven+man has a real problem identifying what I’ve written and responding to it.
I said a President’s word must be worth something specifically on a matter of starting a war.
You are playing word games that make no sense.
It would appear that you are only trying to excuse those Democrats who enabled Bush’s nonsense by making the claim that they were led astray in their utter innocence by his nasty tricks.
That is silly. Bush bears responsibility for his dishonest and unethical actions.
Those who should have known better than to let him get away with it bear responsibility for their failure to try to stop him.
Trying to portray me or John Mace or others as some sort of defenders of GWB displays a serious lack of coherence, (and an utter lack of knowledge since our posts from that period are still available on this board if you wish to take the time to examine them).
That you harp on the idea that anyone is giving Bush “a pass” when no one has suggested that he is not responsible for his own involvement indicates a complete failure on your part to actually read what has been written. Whether or not that failure is deliberate, I do not know.
Since you are more interested in making fatuous comments and implied insults that have no bearing on reality than you are in actually examining the facts of the situation, I will leave you to it. You are entitled to your opinions, but not to your own facts. I see no point in trying to carry on a discussion with a True Believer.
“What you refuse to see is that if Congress had voted no on the War Resolution he would have had no political capital for a unilateral invasion of Iraq.” -from a GOOD STRONG LIBERAL on another FORUM 23 February 2013 12:35 PM.
FYI, Here was my response this morning to the above:
I refuse to accept your premise and speculation after the fact.
Bush used the NEXUS of Iraq’s WMD to his War on Terror, Ties to al Qaeda and Ridicule of Old Europe as his Political Capital Generator.
And we do know one thing for certain and that is the outcome of Congress’ “YES” vote that included references in the JAUMF to support for continuing “PEACEFUL EFFORTS” in order to avoid the “Necessity for War” that did in fact turn out a UN Mandate to Iraq called UN Resolution 1441 which gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.
We do know for a fact that unfettered and unobstructed inspections were resumed and cooperation by Iraq started out better than ever and ended with the Chief Bio/Chem Weapons inspector stating that by early March he could call all Iraq’s cooperation “PROACTIVE”. The Nuclear Chief Inspector gave Iraq a clean bill of health even sooner than Dr. Blix.
We do know for a fact that Bush used the authority granted by Congress nearly six months earlier to “DETERMINE” that those UN Weapons inspections and Iraq’s unprecedented cooperation were an INCREASE in threat and not a reduction of threat and therefore war was needed.
He made that determination during what he called the FINAL DAYS of DECISION.
You have no way of knowing if a NO Vote would have emboldened Iraq to not let inspectors in or even if the UNSC would have even bothered to try.
And in that case you have no way of knowing if Bush, after winning back the Senate and keeping the House in the Mid-Terms, would have built a case for the public to GO TO WAR, mocking the UN and Old Europe all the way… because the USA as usual had to be the one to enforce UN Security Coun cil Resolutions on it’s own in the name of the War on Terror.
Iraq would never had a chance to try to prove that it had no WMD but the unilateral attack on Iraq would have been mostly because of “The AXIS of EVIL” rational and the "POTENTIAL For ties to al Qaeda in the future. You know, the Bush Doctrine.
In October the ‘potential’ for success from UN inspections was enough that turning Bush to keep his word was seen as the best choice.
You may disagree, but you cannot claim it was WRONG, STUPID or Incompetent, and only you are Right, Righteous, Correct and Infallable on this.
BUSH COULD HAVE INVADED based upon the “NEXUS OF WMD TO TERRORISTS” as a pre-emptive action… and never gone through making the reason about Iraq’s violation of WMD Security Council Resolutions.
Bush could have sold public support for that, specifically because he was handed full control of the House and Senate in November 2002.
[quote=“tomndebb, post:271, topic:650759”]
You are playing word games that make no sense.
QUOTE]
What words would you say I am gaming?
There is no need for me or anyone to “excuse those Democrats” for what you think "enabled Bush’s nonsense"because it was not “NONSENSE” in October of 2002, but it became “NONSENSE” in March of 2003 because of successful unfettered UN, Bush AND CONGRESS, requested NEW RESOLUTION 1441 inspections.
You are defending Bush’s MARCH 2003 decision, whether you like it or not, because you don’t like his and Congress’ Ocotober 2002 decision to require Iraq to be in compliance with his disarmament agreement that was established by international law.
You treat it as ONE DECISION just like the Right Wing Most ardent defenders do.
I don’t think you do it intentially, but I think you do it because you have not thought about.
I am forcing you to think about it, and I wish you would do that instead of attacking me for disagreeing with you on the correctness of the October 2002 vote by Congress in dealing with a real and geniune potential threat to our national security from Iraq in a post 9/11 attack world.
You are attempting to dismiss the majority view at that point in time, including the view of the UN Security Council of fifteen members that voted unanimously in Novermeber 2002 to give Iraq a tough and strongly worderd DEMAND that Iraq comply.
Like it or not, there is a reality of perception in American politics and media news culture that the left, specifically the far anti-war left, does not get national security at all, ever. That Democrats are ‘weak on defense’ is a canard used by conservatives and right wing whackos since the Vietnam War.
When anyone on the left says things like, I didn’t give a damn whether Iraq had WMD or not in October of 2002 it feeds the myth that the Democratic Party is weak on defense.
I am not saying it is wrong or right, I am saying it exists, and it is a political reality.
So the ‘pass’ I am talking about is not a direct pass that you think Bush was right somehow to attack and kill people in Iraq.
I am saying the main stream news industry, TV and Print, are ‘complicit with Bush’ in pushing for killing and maiming people in Iraq because they wanted it to happen.
They give Bush a pass.
And they can only do it by discounting criticism of Bush.
They, like you and others here and probably most liberals in all of America do, both , and in harmony love to point out that the MISTAKE of the Iraq invasion was MADE IN OCTOBER 2002… Not March 2003.
The News media will not touch the 'inspection phase of the run-up to war.
Not even PBS.
Look at the PBS Documentary on Iraq, which is excellent by the way… but notices how it jumps in a ninety minute film… from the October vote.. .to the announcment of war with barely a mention of the UN inspections process.
Then look at Rachel Maddow’s documentary … Same thing.
The Left does not do it deliberately … and for the same reasons… but they do it.
They ignore the inspections and what they mean.
Inspections take away from BLAMING the VOTERS in Congress in October and the Left, shows like Rachel’s do not want to let go of blaming Dems … Not sure why…
But I will try to figure it out, but they do.
May I suggest that when at the beginning you are not sure what someone is arguing … say so and try to find out before slamming them on what you first perceive what they are arguing.
What I have to say takes a while… Perhaps I could do it better… and I am working on it.
My point is not popular anywhere on the political spectrum, but you will find it is based on facts and reality and sound logic as best I can do that.
So under your view of the world, it would be good right now if the Congress authorized an invasion of Iran, right? That way the IAEA could have better access to all the suspected nuclear sites, and the world could simply trust that Obama and whoever comes after him won’t invade unless they really really really need to, scouts honor, right?
I never “refused” to identify that as a mistake. It most certainly was.
When everyone in the thread seems to you to have the same “problem”, the more likely issue is with your writing, not with our reading comprehension.
That’s a wild claim. It’s a CT claim, at that. “The media” wanted to have people in Iraq killed and maimed? Really? We’d need to see some positive evidence of that, not something along the lines of: they didn’t do “x”, and so that proves it.
No one in this thread is giving Bush “a pass”. He bears the majority of the blame. You, actually, are the one who is trying to force-fit a black and white analysis of a complex subject. Both were mistakes. It doesn’t have to be either/or. Both were mistakes because you can’t have March 2003 without first having Oct 2002.
It’s early yet. The 10 year anniversary of the invasion isn’t until next month. The media hoopla in looking back on that event has yet to begin.
Well, back on page 1, John did beat the “Clinton was in favor of it too!” drum pretty hard, which might lead a casual observer to conclude that since there’s plenty of blame to go around and it’s all water under the bridge, anyway, John is not in favor of holding GWB or his more ardent direct supporters individually accountable for the outcome of the farce.
To a casual observer, mind you. I don’t believe John has explicitly stated this position, because that’s not how he rolls.