Hubris: The Iraq War

Great Debates
361

Short and sweet. Bush was the “ultimate decider*” and he chose to LIE to all and sundry to get his criminal war going. End of.

OTOH, I also agree that the ones (Dem/Rep) that voted in favor of giving him free reigns are much to blame as well. Again, any lowly net-citizen needed only use Google to KNOW that he was lying. All else is politics and the way the wind blows at the time. So no, no one who voted for, gets a pass. They knew better. And if they didn’t, they didn’t deserve their jobs. We are talking ABC’s here. As luc’ said, OG knows we provided all kinds of counter-facts to the Bushshit being spewed at the time. Didn’t matter.

*though I admit his Neocon ‘advisers’ had more than a little to to with it. In all actuality, his only real fault was being clueless about, well…certainly FP applies. Doesn’t mean he is not a war criminal. He is.

362

Jeez, it’s so rewarding to have my posts ignored.

Show me how the October 2002 vote made anything worse. Show me how it allowed Bush to do anything he couldn’t have done without it. Other than the toothless 60-day limit of the War Powers Resolution, what “reins” did he need to be freed from?

On the other hand, the vote at least slowed him down, got the inspectors into Iraq for a few months (and they proceeded to destroy some of Saddam’s most powerful missiles, which may have saved a few lives), and maneuvered Bush into signing a false document, so that history will know him for the liar he is. That’s not much, but it’s something. Show me how a NO vote would have gained even that much.

I have already conceded, more than once I think, that those who voted against the Levin amendment should be ashamed of themselves. But when all the amendments were defeated, and they had to vote yes or no on the final bill, I haven’t seen anything to convince me that YES was the wrong vote at the time, or even in hindsight. What was really needed was a joint resolution that explicitly prohibited Bush from going to war, but there was no chance of that happening, so they did the best they could with the votes they had.

363

Just a note to say that this has turned into a very interesting thread, rare in that both sides seem to be presenting sincerely held views, and a fair amount of knowledge (much greater than mine) of the situation a decade or more ago, and both sides seem to be making cases that are at various points fairly persuasive.

Dudn’t have too much to do with the HUBRIS show on tv, but so what? This is educational. Kudos all around for maintaining your civility, as far as you have.

364

Education is one of my goals, Thanks. It is good to see one who is here that comes without prejiduce and personal bias for their own perspective.

This it the only thread I have participated in and what caught my eye was TonySinclair’s post which contained a bit of a rare point of view. And that is that when Americans, and this does have to do with Hubris/Doc, refer to the AUMF against Iraq in October 2002, as A VOTE FOR WAR. I believe TonyS and I represent a very few people who believe the wording of that AUMF requires having the correct phrase applied to it and that is “IF NECESSARY”.

Saying a “Vote for War if Necessary” vs saying “a vote for war” may seem like a trivial matter, but it is not.

For suggesting the addition of the two words “IF NECESSARY” all hell broke out against me. For over eight or nine years I have seen how Bush Defenders of his invasion of Iraq, despise those two words added to their most common myth. Bbbbutttt Democrats Voted for the War and then turned against it.

It does not have much sting or myth staying power if you say the truth, Democrates voted for the war IF NECESSARY and then turned against it.

That is because it was not necessary.
So thanks for commenting and please join in… Specifically if you have any quesstions.
And I’d like to reveiw an important part of the discussion, at least to me, which involves my views on when international laws were broken.

I offer the premise that Congress broke NO Law to authorize military force against Saddam Hussein in October 2002 because that refime was in major violation of international law. But I believe Bush, alone violated international law in March 2003 because at that time, the international community regarded Saddam to be taking the opportunity to be fully and completely disarmed and verified disarmed of WMD for once and for all.
Here’s part of an exchange between John Mace and myself…

365

Amen, the political structure with the House Controlled by Republicans sympathetic to Bush’s Iraq hawkishness and the Senate, always filled with more Hawkish types than the House, was not conducive to reigning in one iota of Bush’s war making powers in October 2002. They may have said, hold on cowboy if he started beating war drums seriously against the other two Axis of Evil nations, because they actually had a military and some air defenses that would have been tougher to beat on the initial invasion phase.
The stumbling block the anti-war crowd seems to forget is that there were some Democratic Senators who went public with support for Bush’s confrontation with Iraq following the attacks on September 11, 2001.

There was never room to negotiate for Dashle and Gephardt to get anything other than what Bush wanted.

Most Senators were serious and concerned about a threat from Iraq’s WMD falling into the hands of terrorists when they voted yes. It is absurd in my view to charge that they did not hold that belief as sincere and to not believe they were correct to believe that the THREAT of FORCE would force both BUSH and Saddam Hussein to allow the world to see Iraq disarmed peacefully.

The Dictator of Iraq, told the truth and live up to his word after November 2002. We cannot say the same of the USA Cowboy War on Terror President.

He lied about his desire to KEEP the PEACE and that he wanted war only "IF NECESSARY because Iraq refused to be disarmed.

366

I cannot seem to get much discussion from the IT WAS A VOTE FOR WAR side on the matter of the point I made about international law.

TonySinclaire brings up a good point about the War Powers Act which allowed him sixty days to go kick ass wherever he wanted. Sso with that additional information, I think my argument is even stronger.

The US Congress was **not in violation of international law in October 2002 to authorize **military use of force against Iraq for being in material breach of his decade old Disarmament Agreement from the First Gulf War.

After the vote However, we all know that the UN Security Council voted unanimously passed UN Res 1441 which directed Iraq to immediately allow direct access to all sites and cooperate with a new stronger inspection regime. They also clearly stated that this was Iraq’s FINAL OPPORTUNITY to comply. Bush signed the USA on to granting that Final Opportunity.

So far so good… Congress’ vote for war DID NOT violate international law instead it was met with a good response from the rest of the world including Iraq.
The inspections went on and went well, in fact better than ever before.

Senators who voted in October were being satisfied that Iraq’s threat was being reduced.

The inspectons went on… with Iraq getting better passing grades and NO WMD Being found. They also showed that US and UK intelligence on WMD etc was not worth a damn.
However Bush was seeing none of that, either intentionlly not seeing it or being just too damn dumb and stubborn to see it.
He forced the UN inspectors to quit working so he could maim and kill Iraq’s although the percieved threat from Iraq was greatly reduced and there was no violence taking place inside the invaded nation.

Bush violated international law at that point.

Congress had nothing to do with the violation orther than giving the president some authoriity, that as TonySinclair points out, the President already had, because Congress did not make that call and probably could never have stopped Bush from invading Iraq in the first place.

Remember this, Had Bush gone ahead ramping up to war, gets past the Novemeber mid-terms and now has the Senate… It is possible that NO INSPECTIONS ever took place.

And Bush would have been more legal because Iraq would have not been under the conditions of UN 1441 but in violation of International law.

And there is the argument that UN Members can enforce violations of International law if a threat is there.

Senator Clinton’s husband did it in 2002… although it did not involve a ground invasion.

367

Correction to last sentence in previous post.

Senator Clinton’s husband did it in 1998… although it did not involve a ground invasion.

368

No need to get all sensitive about it. I couldn’t find the original question, so thanks for re-posting it.

Read section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution. It says there are only three circumstances under which the President may use military force: pursuant to a declaration of war or authorization of force, or in response to an attack on the US. There is no standing 60 day legal authorization for the President to invade who he wants. The 60 day clock refers to a procedure to compel the withdrawal of troops, not to a standing authorization for any war that may be less than two months long.

So I totally disagree with the premise of your question, and I believe section 2(c) of the law is abundantly clear.

369

Ravenman is assuming that Bush’s drive for war without a barrior of UN inspections one last try, would have ceased after the Mid-Term elections when, here’s the reality, Republicans picked up control of the Senate and kept the House.

Now had there been enough votes to stop the “Politically charged” AUMF vote in October, which was not even close, there was much more time for Bush to convince Americans that Iraq had to be invaded.

A new vote could have taken place at any time.

Plus Bush had in his back pocket the John Yoo memo that said Bush had legal authority to attack any nation he perceived was Not with us but agin us on the war on terror…
What happened happened.

We should focus on the inspections successess and Bush’s decision and his decision alone to shut them down.

That is not in question at all… Except Rightwingers thing it was a great decision and everybody else at least 70% of us think it was a mistake or a deliberate intent all along to never pay attention to what the UN or what Iraq did.

370

The only negotiating chip they needed was their votes.

Congresspeople were afraid to be seen as weak on matters of war. This doesn’t excuse their votes.

Congress is a check on the President’s power.

You’ve made that clear, but history will disagree with you.

Then find some people who believe that and debate with them. No one in this thread does.

That’s not the arguement at all. The interest is in an accurate analysis and recounting of what led to the Iraq War.

Authorizing military force can never be a violation of law, only using force.

Sorry, no, evaluating the events in their totality will always be more illuminating.

371

Senator Clinton has never asked to be excused for her vote. And you would have to show me that her vote did not reflect her previous views and concerns about Iraq’s non-compliance with it’s disarmament obligations even before the September 11 attacks the year before her vote, to convince me that you know what her motivations were when she voted.

I see nothing more than political witch hunting on your part and you present no evidence to support your claim that she only voted to appear to not be weak on defense like all the other turncoat Dems that voted yes.

372

Hillary Clinton Says She Wouldn’t Have Voted For Iraq War

That’s about all you can expect from an active politician, as far as mea culpas go.

There are two possibilites for Ms. Clinton and other members of Congress who voted for the war resolution. Either she thought the war resolution, rather than the Levin Amendment, was the only way in which Iraq could be induced to accept UN inspections, in which case she made an error of judgement; or she based her vote on a desire to appear tough and hawkish and united with the President to appeal to voters, in which case she was derelict in her duty to the United States.

373

Thanks, I am convinced more than ever that it is correct to condemn Bush alone for his inappropriate decision to break the peace and violate international law when he forced peaceful inspections to cease in order to kill and maim Iraqis which ultimately achieved the same finding. Iraq was not concealing WMD from UN inspectors in March of 2003 as the Iraqis had said.

374

The sum of your interpretation of the Iraq War: Bush and his cronies were evil.

Very enlightening. Future generations will learn much from this.

375

How did you arrive at your declaration that there were only two possibilities of all things considered at Senator Clinton’s disposal in order to provide a rationale for her decision how to vote?

You seem to be quite authoritarian and biased on what evidence you will allow into the court of public discourse and opinion.

376

Through reasoning. What’s your take on the motives of the Congresspeople who voted for the war resolution? I merely pared it down to practical motives (agreeing with the merits of the resolution) or political ones (disagreeing on the merits of the resolution, but supporting it for political gain). By all means, elaborate.

What evidence have I tried to exclude from this discussion?

377

I agree that it’s clear. In fact, it’s almost as clear as the October 2002 AUMF.

Here is section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution in full:

Emphasis added. Note that “or” is used, rather than “and,” to enumerate the conditions required for the President to commit troops. In other words, you are mistaken that an attack on the US is required. An attack on US armed forces is sufficient.

And as I’ve previously noted a couple or three times, one of the justifications that Bush et al use to this day is that our pilots were being shot at during their patrols of the no-fly zones. Our pilots were members of the US armed forces.

If you want to say that an Iraqi taking a potshot at a pilot who is buzzing Iraq is not sufficient provocation for war, I totally agree. But we’re not talking about what you or I would do, we’re talking about what George W. Bush would do. The man who formally declared, in writing, when it was abundantly clear that the inspections were working and that Iraq was not a threat to the US, that diplomacy had failed, and nothing short of war could save us from the menace of Saddam.

The letter to Congress that the 2002 AUMF forced Bush to sign was stricter than the War Powers Act. It didn’t allow Bush to pick just one of several criteria for war, it required that all of its conditions be fulfilled:

Emphasis added. Bush put his name to a list of conditions much stricter than the War Powers Act, which required only a single shot at a single US troop.

You have devoted the last several days to mocking the credulity of people who expected Bush to act in good faith with regard to the October 2002 resolution.

Why do you now refuse to believe that he would have had too much integrity to invoke the “attack on armed forces” condition of the War Powers Resolution?

378

I prefer to state, my own summary, thank you, if that is what you seek.

It is that we must never ceace to evaluate all that happened following the September 11, 2001 attacks. But that it is fair to conclude that there was a strong case in October 2002, that the very existential and complex nature of the universal threat posed by world wide terrorist groups, bent upon killing us, running in parallel with Iraq’s historic failure to allow itself to be verified disarmed of WMD in accirdance with international law means full well that the US Congress was CORRECT to put trust into the Commander in Chief’s hands to do whatever was necessary, including the use of military force to coerce Iraq into compliance with international law and be verified disarmed.

The historical record shows that Iraq’s attempts to be compliant with international law and demonstrate its willingness to be verified disarmed were headed for a peaceful outcome regardless of whether the AUMF was the catalyst for that decision.

The failure and the only reason a war came about as peaceful efforts were clearly the proper and non-deadly way to go, was that the US president decided to abandon all peaceful efforts and engage his nation and other’s into starting a war when peace was apparent.

There is no excuse for what Bush did to the people of Iraq such as blaming it on Congress for authorization to do it.

Congress also expressed support for diplomatic efforts to supersede any decision to start a war.

Congress should not be faulted for attempting in what they deemed proper to protect the national security of the United States because the president blatently ignored the peaceful efforts that were taking place so cleary in front of his eyes.

The vote was ok. The decision to start the war was terribly wrong. I will call that decision evil and stand by it with conviction.

The lesson to learn for future generations should be in my view that, the obvious bad decision by Bush to kill and maim Iraqis to disarm it’s leaders, should not be forgotten as to how it came about.

It is hard to conceive that a situation similar to the run up to and the aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq will ever take place again. So the lesson should not be that Congress should not authorize force by allowing the president to be the sole source on when or how to use it. It should be that when a President’s word is given that force would be used as a last resort and only if necessary, then blatantly broken, then we will allow the international community to decide if that injudicious and unrestrained use of force to disturb the otherwise peace, was indeed a war crime or not.

We should promise to hand Bush over, if the Hague or Iraqis seek to indict him. Make the promise.

Bush on trial for his decision would do the most for preventing anything like this from happening again.

379

Obviously, I misstated that. Please ignore the “refuse to.”

380

Bush’s handlers wanted the war from his first day in office, it’s all there in PNAC’s position papers and the Neocons’ philosophy of Peace Through Aggression.

The more interesting question is: what were the Dems thinking? At the time it looked suspiciously like they were simply too concerned with posturing as tough to mount a serious challenge to the march towards war. The Dems are easily bulldozed into that mistake because since the end of Vietnam they have been on the “hey, maybe a fist isn’t the solution to everything?” side of the culture wars, and in the grip of war fever people don’t want to hear that.

Ironically, to avoid being labeled “weak” on the threat from outside they were in actuality weak on the threat from inside. And that of course undercut them when the occupation went inevitably to hell and then they conveniently remembered their backbone.