I do not recall being wrong about my facts and the reasoning that is derived from them.
What I see as bizarre reasoning is that you disagree with HRC’s explanation for why she voted to entrust Bush in October 2002 and with that disagreement you jump to a conclusion that her motivation was for political expediency.
That would be equivalent to me calling Rep Kucinich a Saddam Hussein sympathizer as right winger would do. I don’t. I have great respect for him and other all out anti-war Politicians. I do disagree on specific cases when war and peace are involved.
Calling her politically expedient is odd in itself because of the polling going on at the time ..
Just before the vote there was a CNN poll I believed that said the Bush/Cheney roll out for a Labor Day PR PUSH FOR WAR did not convince Americans that there was a need to invade Iraq. The Margin was 58% who said they were not convinced by Bush for the need to invade Iraq.
That close to 60% anti-war sentiment lasted all the way to the start of hostilities.
Americans wanted Iraq to be disarmed, but they were insistent in polling that it be done through the UN
In February 2003 close to 60% wanted Bush to give inspectors more time… as much as they needed or have the UNSC authorize the war.
Since this is your last question… I’ll give you a long answer.
Calling HRC politically expedient is also bizarre since it was the Republican Controlled House that drove the JAUMF Bill and Sen Majority Leader Dasche knew when he negotiated with the White House on laungauge that there were enough Senators from the Democratic side for supporting Bush that Bush could get damn near whatever language he wanted in it the House Bill.
I am not sure of the exact numbers but HRC could have voted no ‘symbolically’ and settled out her Presidential Political asperations yet the authorization would have passed anyway.
I believe she voter her concerns and her record with regard to Iraq did not change just because Bush was ramping up a need for war and she wanted it on her resume.
She already agreed with Bush on the basic need to confront SH and force him to diasrm.
Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW
This is normal here, and acceptable?
“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.
Are you proud of proceeding in a debate by creating a diversion from an opponent’s points by changing the context of what your opponent actually wrote?
I call that a contextomy. And the trouble is, that it matters.
I have heard from serveral folks here that they do not understand what I am trying to say.
Is it any wonder, I must ask? If this method is commonly used.
This is a relatively mild contextomy, however there have been many operations like that going on.
“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.” -Human Action 02-24-2013 06:55 PM.
I have concluded that the Iraq War Resolution was the ACT that passed, and it is the only act that truly matters. I am citing mostly the words of one US Senator that has explained why she went with this. I am defending her against the many charges from the left and the right and the middle that are that she made her vote what it was for political opportunism or that she was some kind of fool.
I base that upon her words, and her record and the situation preceeding, during and what followed the day she voted.
I have found very little response from those who make those charges to be defending those charges with the facts and the words and the timeline of events. I have found plenty of examples of diversionary tactics such as the one that I have cited above.
Adding the words IF NECESSARY to statements such as She Voted for the War, is proper and correct. I have found a well organized resistance to the use of saying "They VOTED for voting for the war IF NECESSARY, and I wonder why that is, and I do see how that effects the overall impression of people who are not as engaged on the matter as we are.
NotfooledbyW, you can quote more than once per post. Here’s the code:
[:quote=Username]Text of quote.
[/quote]
Just type that without the colon to quote.
I agreed with Ravenman because he was right. Despite presenting yourself as an anti-Bush crusader, you nonetheless agree with Bush that he should have been given the power to determine, entirely on his own, whether invading Iraq was necessary or not. You fell he misused the power he was given, I say he shouldn’t have been given the power in the first place.
You’ve painted Bush as a liar, and lacking integrity. In substance, I don’t disagree with you. But consider an alternate, more charitable take. Say Bush was entirely honest, sincere, acting in good faith to defend the nation’s best interests, but badly mistaken in his interpretation of Iraq’s actions, of the value of the U.N. inspections; really, the entire situation; and determined that an invasion was necessary. The same outcome, you see, whether Bush is a scoundrel or just sadly mistaken.
This is why it’s foolish to vest such power in one person, which the doctrine of separation of powers is intended to prevent. Even the best of us make mistakes, and with more power, the consequences of mistakes become more and more dreadful. Giving Bush alone the power to determine if a war was needed was a cowardly, morally derelict act by Congress. I’d say the same if any of our 44 presidents were in office at the time. Human frailty is such that systems and protocols designed to protect against errors or malice must always be held in higher esteem than any one individual and his pleas for power, no matter how justified.
…And? This is not a rebuttal. Shall I dismiss your points by saying the same to you?
This isn’t a rebuttal either, it’s the appeal to popularity. If you want to play this game, then I’d point out that the resolution Clinton supported led directly to a war which a majority of Americans opposed.
You claim that without an authorization for war already in Bush’s hand, Hussein would not have complied with UN Resolution 1441. This is baseless; Hussein would have been able to comprehend that the Levin version of the amendment would still have led to war if he didn’t cooperate, under another act of Congress passed when and if Hussein did not comply with 1441. He wasn’t a fool.
Not solely her fault, no, but the 77 Senators who voted for the resolution certainly shoulder some blame.
No, it should never be suspended or minimized. If it was during World War II, perhaps that was justified. But when the war resolution was passed in October, there was no war! And there wouldn’t have been, but for Congress’ dereliction of duty. If you’re conflating 9/11 with Iraq, perhaps you have once more been fooled by W.
You’ve accused others of ignoring context, and yet you wish to focus entirely on Bush’s decision in March 2003 to invade, with no examination of the context surrounding it. March 16th was not some uniquely unavoidable historical moment, it was the culmination of errors and dereliction of duty by many players: Bush, the CIA, Congress, Hussein, and Powell among them.
Again, the problem is that they placed the power to decide if it was, in fact, necessary, in the hands of one man. That’s a blunder at the best of times, but in this case they gave the power to the most irrationally pro-war man one could imagine.
If you want more “context”, let’s remember that many highly ranked members of the Bush administration were on record for several years that our policy in the M.E. should center around an invasion of Iraq. And that was before the events of 9-11-01. And one has to wonder why Kerry, who voted against the first Gulf War, suddenly decided it was a good idea to start an unprovoked war with Iraq. How about the context of: I need to cover my ass for when I run for president.
Right, it wasn’t some secret that Bush wanted to invade Iraq, that he revealed to the world in March of 2003 in a burst of sinister music and moustache twirling. This makes claims that Congress was right to trust Bush with war powers even more baseless.
In any normal discussion, the parties will respond to their opponents’ points with paraphrases for the purpose of determining whether they have correctly understood what was said. The appropriate response to such a paraphrase is to respond that the audience has either correctly or incorrectly understood the first point made and to restate it once more in a form that will highlight the intended meaning. To spend multiple posts complaining that one has been misquoted, (and melodramatically implying evil actions or intent to one’s opponent), instead of simply pointing out the differences in meaning would generally be seen as the diversionary tactic.
As to your neologism, it is another rather silly word game. John Mace actually added context to your claim so that you would have the opportunity to clarify your remark. You are the one who has attempted to remove context from the exchange.
If you wish to actually continue this discussion, stop making an issue of the other posters nad concentrate on what you believe to be the actual arguments for your case.
Ah, but we were at war in 2002, and Iraq was involved in that war prior to the AUMF vote (*a) and 90 percent of Americans accepted Bush’s war footing that he put us on as a reality. Just because the ground invasion of Iraq had not begun does not mean we were not at war.
We have a difference of perspective of conditions at that time, as far as what the threat from Iraq was or could be if Iraq were left without confrontation. That is disagreement on the merit of the vote as passed. My argument is that regardless of the dissagreement about the vote, it was still incumbent upon Bush to live up to the spirit of the law since he gave his word about his intentions for peace.
We are in agreement that Bush was wrong to kick inspectors out. Perhaps you would call that decision a dereliction of duty.
I find it odd that so many here cannot see that it was Bush’s dereliction of duty that actually brought war on the ground in Iraq, and his alone, because what you wish to call Congress’s dereliction of duty, did not and could not, automatically cause it.
Thus we have, the anti-war left’s predisposition to ignore or decline to relegate the importance of the UN’s successes to our understanding if what caused war and what could have prevented it.
Bush negated Congress’s dereliction of duty by making the wrong decision and explaining with an outright lie. The lie was that all peaceful efforts had been exhausted.
That explanation for the necessity of ground invasion flies so contrary into the face of reality that there is no doubt that his intent was all along to deceive Congress.
You hold Congess as derelict for granting Bush the authority to be derilect in his duty, although it was Bush that deceived them in the First place.
I am sorry, I don’t hold Congress accountable for being lied to on a matter of necessity of war.
(*a) US and UK warplanes dropped tons of munitions on Iraq targets during the first half of 2002. It was a major increase in bombing runs than all the previous years combined if memory serves me correctly.
Using that exceedingly low bar of what constitutes ‘war’, should Congress have given Clinton authority to invade Bosnia or Iraq or Sudan? Of course not. Bombing a no-fly zone doesn’t constitute some kind of crisis that obligates Congress to give more power to the President.
Not really, I agree that holding Iraq to its post-Gulf War treaty obligations, and Resolution 687 in particular, was in the best interests of the UN and the United States.
Yes, I agree that Bush’s determination, under section 3b of the war resolution, that:
…represented either being very mistaken or acting in bad faith.
I would, given 1(b) above.
I think the disagreement hinges on your use of “actually” above, that I’ve bolded. The Iraq War wasn’t the result of any one single action, nor is the blame any one person’s alone. This black-and-white view you hold that Bush’s actions of March 16th are the sole meaningful criterion to evaluate what caused the war is myopic and historically inaccurate.
I can’t speak to what the anti-war left thinks, not being a member of that group.
Given that Congress empowered Bush to make this decision, when they didn’t need or have to, no, it in no way absolves them of responsibility. People are responsible for reasonably forseeable outcomes of their actions.
His intent was to invade Iraq, but it didn’t require much deception.
Focusing so exclusively on Bush’s actions in the month of March ignores the systemic realities that contributed to the war: the persistent appeal of nation-building and spreading democracy; the fear that being opposed to a war makes a politician look weak and less electable; working with the UN only when it’s convenient and their decisions are agreeable; the idea that the president is somehow innately trustworthy and honorable; and the idea that a preventative war can ever be justified.
THAT’s the real issue I have with your argument. If we look at 2002-3 and conclude, “Well, Bush was just evil”, then we’ve done nothing to learn from what happened, and what caused it, and make it less likely to happen again. It’s a throwback to the Great Man theory of history, just with a villain instead of a hero.
What deception did he offer them that was so foolproof they had no choice but to vote him war powers?
This is a mistake on your part. The greater the stakes, the MORE accountability is demanded, not less!
There’s one for the file. JMace declares that ‘Congress cannot authorize peace’ which no one in the discussion stated that they could. JMace quoted, but ignored, one of my major points for discussion, that Congress authorized an “outcome” for peace and that the conditions most conducive to that peaceful outcome were solidly realized. My further point would be that regardless of the method chosen, as opposed to other methods, the conditions for a peaceful outcome that reduced the perceived threat, were being realized.
That fact, that reality of a reduction if threat from the time of the vote to the Bush decision to make war is real. So to me it is much more odd for those who wish to quibble over who had the better method to confront the threat or not confront it at all, than to focus on the reality that the perceived was in fact being REDUCED by verifiable and the most reliable measures.
I could be wrong that the perceived threat was reduced by the mere fact that Iraq was being cooperative as never before with the UN inspection regime, but I don’t think any analyst on defense matters or military historian would disagree with me.
They would dissagree had I written that Congress can authorize peace however.
Allow me to repeat what I write, since it was not about ‘what constitutes war’ - it was about was whether there as a nation we were in a state if war, commonly called the war on terror. I would like to stick to the topic and avoid discussions what constitutes war, unless you can explain how it affects the current debate.
Here are my exact lines:
“Ah, but we were at war in 2002, and Iraq was involved in that war prior to the AUMF vote (*a) and 90 percent of Americans accepted Bush’s war footing that he put us on as a reality. Just because the ground invasion of Iraq had not begun does not mean we were not at war.”
You had stated, “But when the war resolution was passed in October, there was no war! And there wouldn’t have been, but for Congress’ dereliction If you’re conflating 9/11 with Iraq, perhaps you have once more been fooled by W.”
So I was showing you the absurdity of wondering whether I had conflated 9/11 with Iraq by attempting to show you that we were on a war footing after 9/11 as the background of the vote to force Iraq to be disarmed peacefully or else.
Iraq’s material breach of all those UN resolutions did not exist in a vacumn of ‘no war’ outside of dealing with Iraq and how to go about doing it.
If it’s your position that the War on Terror justified Congress giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq, well, I disagree strongly. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, which was well established, and even Bush didn’t claim that they did, instead relying on innuendo. If Iraq could have been linked to 9/11, Bush could have used force against them under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, insteading of needing a separate authorization.
You may as well argue that Pearl Harbor justified the U.S. invading Mexico.
A war footing? Meaning what, that we were at war in Afghanistan? So what? None of that has anything to do with how the Iraq situation should have been handled.
I don’t see any logical lines to our disagreement because you have written that Bush was wrong to kick the UN inspection teams out of Iraq so he could maim and kill Iraqis to disarm Iraq instead. The reason is that if Bush had let the inspections proceed to completion there would have been no ground invasion if Iraq. There is only one man on this planet that was authorized to make the call. There is no question about that.
If you want Congress to be responsible in some degree with Bush, you have to agree that Bush was correct to end inspection and start the war.
I do not believe my logic is flawed because without Bush’s decision to kick inspectors out there was to be no ground invasion if Iraq.
There was no close call or tough call for Bush, with the way the inspections were going and the UNSC calling for continued inspections.
Conservatives can go about clammoring falsely that Democrats Voted for War because they see Bush as making the right decision to maim and kill Iraqis instead of letting inspections keep going. But they suffer major self delusions to make that absurd call.
And who authorized this man to make the call, with no further checks on his ability to invade? That’s right, Congress.
No, I don’t. Others have already pointed out the Levin Amendment, which would have led to the UNMOVIC inspections and full disarmament, but not to war.
That is not disputed.
Nor is this.
The Democrats, or at least 82 in the House and 29 in the Senate, did vote for war. Here it is.
Congress gave Bush the power to wage war if he thought it was necessary. Turns out he did.
Marketing. The authorization was marketed as an effort for peace. The reasoning being superficially sound, that unless Bush had the authorization to use force, Saddam would not take him seriously. But with such a viable threat, Bush could corner Saddam and force him to disgorge what he didn’t have in the first place. Marketing, sales know-how.
Of course, the only people who howled in fury over this were radical extremists who said Bush could not be trusted, and we were right, but how could we prove it before he proved it for us?
But he swore up, down and sideways that he was seeking a peaceful resolution, that voting against the authorization was voting against a peaceful solution. You can look back at the archives and find out how many of us thought he was lying, and said so.
So, yes, I think Democrats like Kerry and Clinton bear some responsibility for their failure. But they didn’t lead.
Pretty much greed. Bush bears the greatest amount of fault, but the Congresscritters who voted for the AUMF are not completely blameless. And folks like Hillary actually carried some of Bush’s water in that marketing campaign. You can look that up, too!
But make no mistake about it-- this was Bush’s war. No Bush administration, no attempt at war.
So, you are basing this argument on a statement that is clearly in error?
Iraq was not involved in the so-called “War on Terror,” and specifically played no role in the attacks of September 11, 2001–the only rationale provided in the AUMF–so to rationalize the Congressional action on an assertion that “Iraq was involved in that war prior to the AUMF vote” is simply wrong (or an example of one being “fooled” by Bush).
From the U.S. Sate Department in 2004:
(This was from the actual State Department web site from the period 2001-2003 that was still up in 2004, long after we had made hash of our invasion. It was later removed when it proved to be too embarrassing to the Bush administration:
[noparse]http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10249.htm[/noparse])
Now let’s examine this list of “support.”
The MEK was/is a group that was directed at destabilizing Iran. They were mostly inactive, but what activity they performed was limited to anti-Iran operations. They were such terrible terrorists that the U.S. signed them up as allies as soon as we had secured Iraq.
The PKK is one of several groups engaged in long-term power struggles over who will fight Iraq and Turkey to establish a new Kurdish state; they are not active in “international terrorism.” (In fact, U.S. agencies have reported that they foreswore violence, resorting to “diplomatic” channels in 2000, although I would not be surprised that they have been caught up in the current violence). It seems unlikely that they were being supported by Hussein, who would be as threatened by the Kurdish independence movement as Turkey is.
The support of the PLF is not given a date, but then State goes on to insinuate a direct connection by discussing activities of the slightly different PLFP. Meanwhile, the most recent attack directly connected to the PLF seems to have occurred in the 1980s. There is no established connection between the PLPF and the pre-invasion Iraq. The insinuation by State is clearly one intended to mislead by innuendo.
Including the Abu Nidal Organization is a bad joke. Prior to 2001, Iraq appears to have allowed Abu Nidal, himself, to retire to Iraq–eleven years after his last terrorist activity, which was, itself, an attack on a PLO officer in a bit of internecine warfare.
al Zarqawi had some surgery or other medical attention and left the country without any connection with the Ba’ath regime.
Beyond that, we have only the sporadic donation of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. However, Hussein never announced that he would reward the families of all such bombers, (and, in fact, he gave out only a few such donations–much as a few of our Saudi “allies” have done). With his hit-or-miss approach to donations and the fact that he always made the award after the fact, it was clearly a PR move on his part to garner favor with the Arab community that basically hatred and feared him and there is no evidence that his donations actually influenced the decision of any suicide bomber.
So the “involvement” in the War on Terrorism amounts to allowing a couple of people to retire from terrorism, completely, or to get medical attention, a failure to attack some groups that were operating within his own borders, (and protected from him by the enforcement of the No-Fly zone), and some lip service with no material aid in support of a few Palestinian groups for the purposes of bolstering Hussein’s own image without actually extending any assistance.
Iraq’s “involvement” with terrorism was less than that of Saudi Arabia.
The only “terrorist” actions in which Iraq engaged were those carried out during the open war with Iran and, later, internally against segments of the Iraqi people, neither of which fall into the category of the so-called “War on Terror.”
To claim that Iraq was “involved” in the War on Terrorism is to be fooled by Bush as much as believing that there were WMD in Iraq on March 18, 2003.
