Nonsense. The Levin amendment would NOT have allowed the President to wage war without a UN Resolution. Bush would have had to ask Congress for another use of force resolution.
The authorization that Clinton voted for – and Levin voted against – actually authorized Bush to wage war against Iraq, no matter what the UN did. You have things totally reversed.
The irony is that you decry Bush for acting in bad faith, but Levin’s amendment would have eliminated the need for Congress to put its faith in George Bush not to go to war alone.
You, quite literally, have been fooled by George Bush into thinking that anti-war amendments were pro-war amendments. Actually, let me take that back: even George Bush didn’t argue such an Orwellian position.
No, not without a Security Council resolution or another act of Congress.
I don’t buy her reasoning. Under the Levin Amendment, if the Security Council did indeed fail to pass or enforce a resolution, Congress could then authorize the President to use military force if it was deemed necessary. Since, in fact, the UN passed Resolution 1441 and everything was proceeding more or less smoothly, that authorization almost certainly would not have been given. Hence, no needless war.
Clinton’s argument and the resolution she supported only make sense if she has the sort of blind faith in the President’s motives and judgment that separation of powers should preclude, or if Iraq was an immediate threat that might need to be invaded at a moment’s notice to defend the United States. That was never the case.
There was no downside to the Levin approach. There was downside to the Clinton approach: it allowed Bush to do exactly what he did. There is no benefit from the Iraq War Resolution as passed that justifies this.
Good point. NotfooledbyW, if you’ve concluded that the Iraq War Resolution was the only such act that was appropriate to the situation at the time, you have indeed been fooled by W.
I had trouble figuring out what you are calling nonsense, Raven+man so this string of posts is as follows. My response to your comments is at the end.
TITLE: The Levin Amendment Put US National Security Decisions to what the UN does. - Ntfldbw 02-24-2013 06:35 PM.
“NotfooledbyW, why exactly is it that the Levin version of the war resolution would have failed to get inspectors back into Iraq?” –Human+Action 02-24-2013 02:40 PM. (Post 16039685)
“The amendment called, first, for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed and, in Senator Levin’s words, “urge us to authorize a going-it-alone, unilateral resolution.” That resolution would allow the president to wage war as a last option.” – Posted by Ntfldbw 02-24-2013 06:35 PM.
I will let HRC Explain it: (Ntfldbw 02-24-2013 06:35 PM)
"Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament,
However, this course is fraught with danger.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it.
But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act.
In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam’s compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action." – Posted by Ntfldbw 02-24-2013 06:35 PM.
“Nonsense." ( Ravenman 02-24-2013 06:45 PM)
"The Levin amendment would NOT have allowed the President to wage war without a UN Resolution. Bush would have had to ask Congress for another use of force resolution. *A
The authorization that Clinton voted for – and Levin voted against – actually authorized Bush to wage war against Iraq, no matter what the UN did. You have things totally reversed. *B
The irony is that you decry Bush for acting in bad faith, but Levin’s amendment would have eliminated the need for Congress to put its faith in George Bush not to go to war alone. *C
You, quite literally, have been fooled by George Bush into thinking that anti-war amendments were pro-war amendments. Actually, let me take that back: even George Bush didn’t argue such an Orwellian position.” *D - Ravenman 02-24-2013 06:45 PM.
Ntfldbw re/*A - That is what I Posted 02-24-2013 06:35 PM. What’s the point?
Ntfldbw re/*B - It authorized Bush to wage war against Iraq IF necessary and that is where this string was going. So I answered what Human+Interest asked me. Then you butted in, trying to say what, I do not know. Perhaps you can explain it.
Ntfldbw re/*C - I posted that I was letting HRC explain it. Here is what she said again; “In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.”
I agree with HRC’s point that in order to best insure that the UNSC and Iraq act to finish disarmament is to put faith in the President to let the UN and Iraq know damn well they had better act because the question of authorizing war has already been started.
Ntfldbw re/*D - You are inchoherent. I don’t think anti-war amendments are pro-war amendments. What I think is on the record here. No need to improvise.
NFBW: You might want to know that your posts are almost impossible to read. They look more like computer code than prose. Please take this as the friendly advice that it is.
The lack of or the existence of a downside to either approach is your opinion.
You asked this question “NotfooledbyW, why exactly is it that the Levin version of the war resolution would have failed to get inspectors back into Iraq?” –Human+Action 02-24-2013 02:40 PM. (Post 16039685).
We know you don’t buy her reasoning but she has reasoning and many more Americans bought it than reject it as you do.
Those like me who buy it, understand that Bush lied to her and it is not HER fault that he lied to a US Senator on a matter of war.
This separation of powers not expected to ‘TRUST’ each other, that you bring up, I believe are generally suspended or mininmized during war.
Like it or not.. one year ofter the attacks on 9/11 the USA was in a war.
Is this what you do when the argument is slipping away?
It was you who said you did not care if Iraq had WMD back in 2002 wasn’t it?
That explains a lot.
As tom said, you’re a True Believer, and so there is really no point in continuing this debate. Your arguments are either specious or Conspiracy Theories.
No. It is the reaction of someone who is willing to engage you, but who is having trouble reading what you post because you abbreviate other posters’ usernames in odd ways and then ignore perfectly good quote functions to type out odd and cryptic lines that replace the quote functions.
You will do better if you simply try to keep the discussion going and not try to make up nonsense to claim “victory.”
No. I am a poster who entered the thread to try to figure out why you were arguing with others who were in basic agreement with you. When I discovered that you are simply here to push an odd revisionist history of which you will undoubtedly fail to persuade anyone else, I decided it was not worth my time to continue to engage you.
However, I am also a Moderator. As you have become more bellicose and hostile, I am compelled to watch that you stay within the rules. As your posts become more nearly insulting, they run the risk of violating our rules.
John Mace made a polite suggestion, to which you rudely responded, and I was pointing out that his effort to improve the discussion was correct. You have now responded rudely to my attempt to reinforce his suggestion.
If you do not want to follow our protocols, you are welcome to find another place to post. If you are going to flout both our protocols and our rules, your tenure here will be brief.
You may hold and express any position you choose; I disagree with many posters in this forum. If you become disruptive, you will leave.
How about John+Mace changing what I wrote right after he cited what I wrote.
I can read what I wrote, Why can’t J+M?
“They also authorized an outcome for peace.” -Ntfldbw 02-23-2013 07:57 PM.
There is no such thing as authorizing peace. - John Mace 02-23-2013 08:48 PM.
I wrote “authorized an ‘OUTCOME for PEACE’” and J+M responds as if I wrote they ‘authorized peace’.
Of course no Legislature can authorize peace.
But Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton authorized a law that certainly could have authorized an outcome for peace because it actually did… UNTIL Bush determined all on his own to disrespect the authority Congress granted him, to kill and maim Iraqis instead of letting the outcome of peace be realized.
I am simply here to “push an odd revisionist history of which you will undoubtedly fail to persuade anyone else”?
Kindly read my first and response to Tony Sinclair:
There is already someone here who considers Senator Clinton’s vote in 2002 to be correct. I didn’t know that saying her vote was a vote for war “IF NECESSARY” was such a sensitive topic here. The uproar and attacks were not started by me.
Quite the pouncing took place:
“Very disappointed with {Hubris/Maddow Documentary} this. It almost could have been made by Fox News.
The authorization passed by Congress in October of 2002 did not give Bush unconditional authority to invade; it set some conditions, namely that within 48 hours of invading, Bush had to certify to Congress in writing that all diplomatic measures had failed, and that nothing short of war could protect the US from Iraq. Bush signed a statement saying that that was the case, in full knowledge that the UN inspectors had said that Iraq’s only weapons in violation of UN sanctions were some conventional missiles that flew about 111 miles, instead of the 93 miles allowed. The US is 8000 miles from Iraq, and the UN had already begun destroying the missiles, but Bush didn’t care. He invaded anyway, after lying to Congress in writing.”
“May he burn in hell.” -Tony+Sinclair 02-18-2013 10:47 PM. (Post 16021813)
"I had similar disappointment with the Documentary although it was never expected to be what it should be. I have reached a conclusion that coming from a liberal perspective there is difficulty understanding what you have written very well above.
Every commentator in “Hubris” last night when mentioning the authorization used the phrase that Senators and Congressmen “VOTED FOR WAR”.
That is not true at all. It does not take but a split second to add the proper “if necessary” to that phrase.
Bush defenders always come back against any criticism of Bush’s final decision to kick inspectors out and start war with the manic cliché’… “BUT DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR WAR”.
I feel this powerful myth contributes heavily to why Bush and Cheney have not paid a price other than the demise of any kind of respected legacy for the depraved acts they committed ten years ago to put Americans in a kill and be killed situation when UN inspectors were disarming Iraq just fine and better than they ever had done before." -NtfldbyW 02-20-2013 12:14 AM.
The last question I have for you is, are you just a huge Hillary Clinton fan or something? Because I think her explanation of her vote is total nonsense, and simply a cover for voting the politically expedient way. The only explanation I can think of for your controrted view of law, the run-up to the way, and your view of Bush, is that you’re a huge Clinton fan and will grasp at any bizarre reasoning to argue that Clinton didn’t actually commit a huge mistake by casting a vote to approve a law that authorized a senseless war.
The whole issue of revisionism is my opinion of your odd defense of Clinton, Kerry and others. You have utterly failed to persuade me of your position. I do not see you persuading anyone else of your position. I really do not see me being able to persuade you that your view is in error. I see no point to my investing the energy to argue a point on which no one’s views will change.
John Mace echoed back your statement in a way to continue the discussion. He did not misquote you. (And he, at least, is using the board functions to present quotes in a readable format.) He has broken no rules and I am not going to admonish him for engaging you.
You have not broken any rules, yet, but your tone follows a pattern of others who have let their emotions lead them into rules violations. Dialing back your emotions and avoiding rude replies will help you avoid getting in trouble.
“Your effort to make him {Bush} singularly responsible for this tragedy makes no sense.” - tomndebb 02-24-2013 12:00
My effort has been to point out that Bush was singularly responsible for deciding sometime after March 07, 2003 that UN inspections would not lead to the enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions and there was an urgent need to start a war instead of allow the inspections to continue.
And I have acknowledged that there was meaningful disagreement and reasons for politicians voting to allow or not allow Bush to make that determination.
The above is not in dispute, but a moderator informed me that It makes no sense.
And my point is that Senators that put trust in Bush to make a correct determination if certain conditions were met should not be held accountable for what Bush did as they currently are by the left and by the right and by the News Media.
Shouldn’t charges of historical revisionsim be related to modifying dates and quotes by historical figures instead of a perception that a differing point of view is odd.
I believe I told someone here that HRC and Kerry’s vote does not need to be defended. There is nothing wrong with it. Because most here who were willing to discuss it do not agree with their vote does make it odd, or that they lack character.
What annoys me is that I have taken the same argument from the right wing Bush defenders … Bbbbbuuuuttttt Democrats voted FOR THE WAR.
When they do it I do honestly believe they are saying it out of ignorance.
I have not questioned the intelligence of anyone here because I know they are motivated by the desire to avoid war instead of being gung ho for any war the Federal Government puts in front of them.
But I am driven by the fact that when I protested the drive for war in Iraq - I did agree with HRC and Kerry and Bush if you I must say that Iraq needed to be brought back into compliance.
I was at the Peace Rally in DC just before the war when I met an elderly woman at a booth who asked me if the war protest would stop it.
I told her no and she looked quite sad.
But then I told her that .. the UN inspections would stop.
I said I cannot see, even Bush being so stupid as to pull the inspectors out and sent the troops in.
So I was wrong.
But I was not fooled by Bush nor was Clinton and Kerry.
I was fooled by respect for reason and morality would always prevail.
I am passionate about this and there is no Conspiracy Therois or oddness going on from this side.
It might take a while to get used to the format…
Never used it before.