The war on terror was in the background when the AUMF on Iraq was passed. I said the vote did not take place in a vacumn of ‘No War’. Very Few politicians compartmentalized Iraq from the rest of the war on terror during the fall of 2002 whether it was clear that Iraq was involved in 9/11
The concern of the threat of the nexus of Iraq’s alleged WMD ending up in terrorists hands increased a hundred-fold after 9/11.
That is the connection to Iraq I tried to address to you.
“The rest of” the War on Terror? Again, Iraq was not part of that.
If your position is that Congress members voted for the Iraq war resolution because they were hysterical about terrorism, or unaware that Iraq had nothing do with 9/11, that makes them more worthy of blame for the war, not less. These aren’t truck drivers and stonemasons in a man-on-the-street interview, they are full-time, professional politicians with access to intelligence reports. Asking them to keep entirely separate issues separate is not too much to ask.
And if hysteria over terrorism excuses bad judgement, how can we blame Bush for invading? Perhaps it was the only way to be sure that Iraq was disarmed, and a US-friendly government installed.
Certainly it led to more strenous interest in whether Iraq had WMDs, and whether they were complying with UN resolutions on the matter. It still doesn’t justify voting for the war resolution.
Iraq’s history as a pariah state and its utter disregard for compliance with the UN Resolutions on WMD earned it a place on Bush’s Axis of Evil. The potential for cross-pollination of a brutal anti-American dictator with WMD falling into the hands of terrorists was Iraq’s involvement in the war on terror. Iraq’s only way out was to become in compliance with it’s disarmament obligations to the UN Security Council.
The mild war between Iraq and the US and UK from 1998 through the beginning of 2002 meant involvement in the war on terror in general because of Iraq’s failure to disarm.
I am not advocating that Iraq was connected or involved with al Qaeda - they were involved because if it WMD history - rightly or wrongly.
In the opinion of 75 US Senators it did. In your opinion it did not. In my opinion it did.
So that is that. The vote cannot be changed.
So what was Bush, the Decider’s lone, solitary decision that changed peaceful disarmament into violent disarmament with no violations of Res 1441 by Iraq according to UN inspectors at the time if decision?
He kicked the Inspectors out.
He incorrectly forced them to leave.
We agree on that.
Why must we dwell on ‘woulda coulda shoulda’ on the vote end?
Why does your opinion carry more weight than mine on the vote end?
Correct.
Nor can Bush’s decision, nor can any historical event.
A colossal mistake, even if you think Bush’s aims were noble and achievable, which I do not. Western liberal democracy cannot be imposed from without, for one.
Because ignoring it in favor of a monolithic focus on a single decision by Bush is a shoddy, myopic way to examine history. I explained my reasoning earlier in this thread:
It doesn’t, inherently. You can’t prove that the Levin Amendment would have failed to motivate Hussein to comply with Resolution 1441, and I can’t prove that it would have succeeded. On balance, though, it seems obvious that an additional check on the use of military force does not remove the persuasive power of such force. The U.S. military is an amazing war machine, regardless of whether two votes or just one are required to unleash it. Hussein was well aware of that, having experienced the U.S. military capability first hand.
What that additional check does accomplish, though, is to spread the power to make war over more people. This insulates against the chance that a single person, motivated not by a wish to enforce UN resolutions, but desire for war at any cost, is the one who gets to make the decision
Remember, we are talking about presidential judjment AFTER Iraq offered to let the CIA in too!
There is no excuse for the Decider’s bad judgment when people will die deliberately as a result of the decision.
The credulity is breathtaking: “Saddam said it, so he MUST have meant it! What kind of crazy world are we living in where we can’t take the word of Middle Eastern dictators at face value?!?”
“George Bush got a war resolution and then went to war!! My faith in handing over unchecked power to the White House has been shattered!”
What’s next? “That TV ad said New Coke is way better than the original – but it wasn’t!!! Why would TV lie to me??”
You might agree on that. I would agree with the more accurate representation that unidentified personnel in the State Department notified the UN and the IAEE on the night of March 16/17 that they needed to get their people out of Iraq before the bombs fell on March 18.
Given that he was about to order hell to be rained down on the nation, I would think that letting neutral parties know that their lives were in danger was a correct action–one of vanishingly few.
And let’s remember, GWB still thinks it was a good decision, as do many from his administration as well as many Republicans in Congress.
Hate to break the news to you. What you desire was never possible in October 2002. The House of Reps was Republican and was willing and eager to wrote whatever authorization Bush put before them to invade Iraq. Over in the Dem Senate prior to negotiations with the White House on the final draft language there were enough Democrat Senator’s going public with there expressed support for Bush rolling Iraq into the War on Terror full scale.
Anti-war propponents had no negotiating chips to put blocks on Bush’s push for war on Iraq if necessary.
Bush started talking peace and Gephardt and Daschle got some diplomacy language in, but Bush was always going to get a vote whatever way he wanted it.
No checks in his power from the many seats of power in the Congress,
I say the blame goes entirely to Bush for starting a war that never had to be.
Some of us we Not Fooled By W even in 2002.
But so many are fooled into believing that the Decider was not the lone Decider who kicked the Inspectors out.. (had State Department Officials Notify them) in order to start a war to disarm Iraq violently instead of letting the inspections continue.
It was those Bad Bad Democrats in Congress who didn’t stop poor mentally challenged Bush get to decide to kill people.
It’s kind of sad that you are ridiculing people for holding the President of the United States to a higher standard than a murderous Middle Eastern dictator.
Unless I missed it, you haven’t addressed my point about the War Powers act, so I’ll ask again: What “unchecked power” did the October 2002 vote give to Bush that he didn’t already have?
To refresh your memory, Bush’s famous codpiece speech, declaring major combat operations over, took place on May 1, 2003, well within the 60-day limit imposed by the War Powers act, so pulling out at that point, with Iraq’s military destroyed, would probably have resulted in Iran moving into the vacuum. It’s difficult to believe that Congress would have allowed that to happen, so I don’t see the October vote having any negative effect. And it had the positive effect of showing everyone but the True Believers just what a shit Bush was, because the inspections (which the October vote forced Saddam to allow) were clearly working when Bush signed the letter (as mandated by the October vote) saying they weren’t.
It’s even sadder that you think that’s what he said.
Since he didn’t bother to tell us who or what he was addressing with that snark, I honestly wasn’t sure how to interpret it. Putting approximately as much effort into reading his mind as he did in making his thoughts clear, I thought it could either be
a) sarcasm directed at the pro-Hillary camp, equating their outrage at Bush’s lack of good faith with a Pollyanna-ish trust in Saddam, or
b) a sincere but idiotic criticism of the left that you would expect from (and in 2002, we actually got from) the likes of Sean Hannity or Michelle Malkin, equating a preference for doing everything short of invasion — severe economic sanctions; inspectors with unlimited access to the country, including the Presidential Palaces; and fighter jets patrolling the skies over large portions of his country — with allowing Saddam to do whatever he wanted.
Since Ravenman has given no indication (in the posts I’ve read) that he is an idiot or even a conservative, I chose (a).
How should I have interpreted it?
And if you can lower yourself enough to further illuminate your intellectual inferiors, could you address my question about the War Powers Act?
I would submit that the October vote also forced Bush to allow inspectors to get back in against Cheney’s design for war, because he wanted the Brits to assist with the maiming and killing of Iraqis of Iraqis to impress upon the world that this was a broad coalition.
Bush already had a license to kill and maim Iraqis at a time of his choosing because he was authorized to use force against anyone he decided was a threat and in cahoots with terrorsts, but Tony B, was not so lucky. Tony needed the cover of a new Resolution so SH could defy it and the UN could fail and all would be well and they could say to Iraqis - prepare to die.
So Bush Gets the Republican controlled House to co-write a war arct saying some things about diplomatic efforts and Bush tries to help Tony out by talking up the "I am a Peacekeeper - the more war authority, the more Peace I can make’.
But George and Tony started to have a problem. SH was complying… SH even went public that the CIA could come into Iraq.
Colin Powell, slipped out of his cage and went on Stephanopolis after Christmas 2002 and said that Iraq was cooperating and we’ll see if that cooperation will continue.. if so war will be averted.
Powell must have been waterboarded after that , warned to never go public with that again.
So Bush had to block the inspections out mentally … Saddam did not let him in.
What I see here is more interest in faultying a couple of Democratic Senators for Voting to let Bush decide to kill people… as if the inspections never happened,
I am not sure how this attitude was polling in 2002?
As noted, I didn’t care if SH had WMDs or not. I did not consider him a threat to the US. - John Mace 02-23-2013 04:29 PM
Wait, what’s the question? Whether Iran would have conquered Iraq if Congess hadn’t bravely and ignorantly approved a war that was a huge mistake?
No, seriously, I can’t find the question you’re referring to.
I’m happy to help you with that.
which was in response to your observation:
To complete the context, the War Powers Act allows the President to use military force on his own authority, provided he notifies Congress within 48 hours of doing so (a condition that was retained and slightly strengthened in the October 2002 vote), so he already had all the authority he needed to invade Iraq, based on his own judgement that it was a threat to US security (and his willingness to state that US forces had been fired on, but he and Rice maintain to this day that Iraq frequently fired at our planes patrolling the no-fly zones). It also requires that he must begin withdrawing the troops after 60 days unless Congress endorses his action, but as I noted, we had destroyed Iraq’s army well within that time limit. Withdrawing the troops at that point would probably not have been done, because nobody could have guessed how badly Bush would bungle the occupation, and nobody wanted Iran to fill the power vacuum that we would have left behind.
You and Mace have suggested throughout this thread that Congress somehow gave Bush permission to invade with their 2002 vote, but he never needed their permission to invade; he only needed their permission to not pull out after 60 days — really 90 days, because the WPA allows 30 additional days for withdrawal.
And since I don’t want to be like certain people I could mention, and deride your reading comprehension without actually contributing anything to alleviate your confusion, I will also be happy to help you with your misunderstanding on this point. I did not fear that Iran would conquer Iraq if Congress failed to pass the October 2002 resolution; I feared that Iran would conquer Iraq if Bush invaded Iraq under the authority of the War Powers Resolution, destroyed Iraq’s military within 60 days (as he did), and then withdrew our forces and left a shattered, defenseless Iraq to the tender mercies of Iran.
If you think that scenario sounds silly, I agree. Which is why the 60-day time limit, the only restriction on Bush’s war powers that the October 2002 vote lifted, was in practice no restriction at all. So far from giving Bush unchecked power, as you claimed, the October 2002 vote gave him nothing he didn’t already have. And it gave the world at least the chance for a peaceful solution, as well as documentary proof that Bush was a liar.