Paragraph 3.a is clearly the statement of authorization for military action in order to 1) defend and (2) enforce.
Paragraph 3.b regards the Presidential Determination in connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection 3.a to use force concerning sub-paragraph (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means.
You have not explained how the exercise of the authority granted in subsection 3.a to use force would be modifiec because Bush had a choice to fill out the paperwork to Congress on whether he determined to end diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either because it will not adequately protect the national security of the United States or is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
With either determination or both submitted to Congress, Bush was still authorized to invade Iraq to protect the national security of the USA, and , not “or” to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions.
That is why getting UN Resolution 1441 passed and inspections working plays into what Bush didn’t do. He did not ‘enforce’ UN Security Council resolutions… he defied the last and most active one.
And you have authority to make that determination because…?
I have not inserted “or” into the key authorization subsection that uses “and” because my interpretation does not need to do that. I am also fine with the ‘or’ in the Determination on Peaceful efforts subsection because it does not negate that both determinations are what Congress expected from Bush IF war became necessary because the peaceful efforts failed.
The peaceful efforts did not come close to failing and that is the real point that Bush decided entirely on his own to abandon them - Not Congress..
I am not arguing that the US invasion is illegal under domestic law. I am pointing out that there were restraints placed on Bush within the language of the UAMF that was passed by Congress.
I disagree with your contention that there were no restraints contained in language by US Lawmakers, that at the time, (a) intended to give the President the authority to use force IF NECESSARY because their judgment was that it was as Bush was saying, ‘a way to keep the peace’. And (b) because you hold an unprecedented lack of expectation for a longstanding American value when you submit that there should be little expectation that the President’s word means little; that a US Senator in deciding matters of crisis and/or war should not trust the President to keep his word. Those Senators should somehow know when a Commander in Chief/US President is lying or trying to deceive them.
The ‘restraint’ issue in the document is certainly arguable and my points have plenty of merit. However, the trust issue is a matter of opinion, that cannot be settled easily one way or the other. However I expect that the trust issue has some of its foundation on your need to dismiss the existence of ‘restraints on Bush’ in the AUMF.
And I see a weakness in your argument on the restraints, that comes from this statement:
To improve our knowledge about all that happened I believe we must look at all aspects and conditions and language of documents and the recorded speeches of all involved and elimiate prejudices from all angles. I could care less if Bush were found to be in violation of U.S. Domestic Law.
I care that it is and there exists, a myth that pervades the public’s and pundit’s and news person’s perception** that Congress VOTED FOR WAR.** They did not to the best of their ability in a time of crisis and legitimate concern about a threat to our national security VOTE FOR WAR.
**They voted for WAR if NECESSARY **and they put language in the AUMF they thought best would bring about a peaceful solution, that clearly makes it clear that the President of the USA was a lying conniving SOB when he gave his word prior to the invasion and since, that he would 'exhaust all peaceful efforts to avoid war… as should ‘go without out saying’ or having to put into an agreement between the President and Congress.
Bush violated international law when he decided on his own to forcibly abandon the UN inspections that resulted from UN Resolution 1441. When he did that he broke his word to Senator Clinton and Senator Kerry and many others and to me.
Breaking his word on a complex issue is not in my mind grounds for impeachment or censure. But there are grounds that promote and support those few Americans that were sworn into high office as well, to uphold and to DEFEND the Constitution of the USA and who voted in a way that you vehemently disagree.
So when it was at a time that US Senators and House members were legitimately concerned about national security, it is not fair or proper or right to hold the Congress Members accountable for Bush’s blatant abuse and misuse of his high office and the respect that office commands.
That is an explanation of why I make the points I do, and it should not be construed as an argument that I wish to make a legal case that Bush violated US domestic law. I am not making that case.
Does anyone think that is unusual or ‘not normal’ to expect the President of the United States when engaged in direct discussions with sitting U.S. Senators to keep his word on a matter of pre-emptive war in a time when there were legitmate concern for a specific threat to our national security?
All Iraq invasion myths work pretty much in conjunction with one another. The need to differentiate 2003 USA’s invasion of Iraq from the 1939 invasion of Poland produce the Bushie promoted myth that “The world is better off with the elimination of Saddam Hussein”.
I wonder therefore if the myth that has deeply settled in across the globe that the US Congress VOTED FOR WAR feeds a perception across the entire planet, that All Americans were war crazed fanatics that wanted to eliminate Saddam Hussein for oil and their elected leaders all VOTED FOR WAR, so it is very unlikely to those outside the US and UK that seeking justice for war crimes against humanity in Iraq in accordance with international law is even worth the bother?
The same authority you have, that of a layperson on the Internet.
Ok, what were those restraints, then? Did Bush act in accordance with them? If not, then the war was illegal. If yes, then clearly the restraints were not sufficient to prevent a needless war, were they?
The only restraint I see is that Bush had to supply a written determination, and that force was limited to Iraq.
The longstanding American value is separation of powers, not blind trust. You’re describing a dictatorship, where power is vested in one man and we little people just have to trust that he has our best interests at heart.
You’re the one who’s so convinced that Bush was lying. I think a reasonable case can be made (and HRC backs me up on this) that he was just badly mistaken.
Senators should be aware that humans, even Presidents, lie and make mistakes. Question: would you support Congress passing a law authorizing the President alone to exercise all of Congress’ powers under the Constitution on their behalf? Why or why not?
You are arguing in opposition to an advocate of ‘blind trust’, but that writer is not me. So please stick to defending against my positions as I convey them here.
As I have stated numerous times. 3.a.2 was the specific restraint. Force was being authorized if Bush determined it was necessary in conjunction with 3.a.1 to protect the national security of the United States of America by enforcing **all relevant UN Resolutions **with regard to Iraq.
Key word being ‘all’ as in the potential that something like what Bush said he wanted came along and that was 1441. Lawmakers cannot write specifics about ‘restraints’ that are tied to the future, but are relevant to the written law at the time.
Bush, and Bush alone, did not act in accordance with the restraint that is in the JAMF Authorization Subsection as I listed above. Bush did act however in activevly seeking and obtaining UN Resolution 1441 which became an active UN Resolution and he obligated himself to it. It was Bush’s lone and separate defiance of UN Resolution 1441 that makes the US and UK invasion of Iraq illegal under international law, but not necessary illegal under US domestic law. And the latter is because Bush did not commit a war crime or a crime against humanity against the domestic US population; he committed a crime against the humanity that were living in Iraq.
The restraint that was in the language of the JAMF was sufficient to prevent a war once the UN inspections began to clearly work, and on the day that Iraq offered to let the CIA and US military come into Iraq and work alongside UN inspectors to verify that WMD did not exist Bush.
There should be no onus on Congress to expect that the President of the United States of America would be so bold as to defy the peaceful mechanism for avoidance of war that he himself worked to set up.
The Onus is on Bush for defying UN Resolution 1441, and forcing the unwarrented abandonment of peaceful inspections and then starting a war.
Correction: The only restraint you ‘want’ to see is as the one you are expressing above that serves you big picture view of the entire disaster.
My bigger concern is that Bush told us on the night he announced the US invasion of Iraq would start,
and many have swallowed that as true. Many have been fooled by Dubya and the Press that were stenographers for the Bush Admin’s drive toward this war when Bush said Congress VOTED FOR THIS WAR… and He tried to work with the UN.
It was 18 months or so when it became official that Iraq did not have the WMD that Bush claimed…
With so many Americans focused upon the combat our troops ended up fighting … there came no challenged the lies that Bush told during an announcement of war. The one being focussed upon here is the lie in the form of a half-truth.
And to me a half truth is a lie as no other lie. And I’m sorry. I do have higher expections for the president of the United States NOT to engage in such shenigans and deceptions when he/or she is about to order actions where innocent people and our troops will die.
I do not accept that a US Senator asking Secretary Powell the Secretary of State, questions at a Senate Hearing, and that the Senator’s upon hearing the answers on behalf of the President, must be compelled by, Seperation of Powers, to expect the President is lying and being deceptive to them. Why have hearings at all if that is the case.
I am waiting for someone to explain how it was that Senators Clinton and Kerry voted to have Bush seek a UN Resolution to resume inspections, get one namely 1441, and then kick the inspectors out.
If it was a war crime in international law to plan, prepare and initiate the war of aggression against Iraq; and because it is readily obvious that Bush and Company planned for war and deceived Congress to get authorization on the insistence that it was only IF NECESSARY, then there is indictable charges applicable to Senators Clinton or Kerry, since they were part of the Congress that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld etc deliberately plotted and connived to deceive.
I wonder if I could get straight answer from anyone to this question if I rephrase it just a bit: (-Ntfldbw 063a) …Is there anyone who says invading Iraq when Bush did, by kicking UN inspectors out after just a few months of doing their work, was NECESSARY and therefore NOT INSANE?
I don’t know what else to call the idea of giving a president with a laundry list of reasons for a war, the power to start said war, and then trusting him not to do it.
This wasn’t some brilliant con by Bush, his feelings on the matter were quite clear and quite public.
687 and 678 were also relevant UNSC resolutions.
Lawmakers certain can tie restraints to future events; that’s what the Levin Amendment did. Even something like “enforce all future UNSC resolutions with regard to Iraq” would have probably sufficed; it’s not like 687 and 678 weren’t available to Congress to see what “all revelant resolutions” would encompass.
Are you sure you’re not in favor of the Levin Amendment? You sure seem to be.
You seem incredibly idealistic about the process (Presidents never lie!) and incredibly cynical about the outcome (Bush lied, and might be insane). I find this odd.
As to the idea that Congress should trust the president…
Ever heard the saying “trust, but verify”? That is, don’t expect that the President is lying (or mistaken, a possibility you refuse to address), plan for the possibility.
Where have I written that I believe ‘Presidents never lie’ or anything close? Of course there have been some that have lied, but most have integrity.
I am arguing that it is a matter of expectations. If there must be constant vigilance between parties due to separation if powers that one or both sides are lying most of the time, then there is no reason for the separated powers to meet and discuss much.
Reality to me is there is expectation at that level, that the word and the facts are good. A man is only as good as his word is a big part if being President or one if 100 US Senators.
What I am trying to tell you is that the reality is that it is a very rare event and may have never happened at all, (maybe Gulf of Tonkin, maybe not) wherin a US Seneator conducts a hearing and asks the Administation specific questions about a very serious matter and gets a multitude of direct and clear answers, such as the one cited below, and to find out later that those answers turned out to be bogus and lies.
You brought (Gulf if Tonkin) into this discussion for comparison; so the burden is on you to show what compares.
I have not claimed Bush lied about WMD intelligence, if course he could have genuinely believe the intel prior to October 2002.
The lie he told Senators Clinton and Kerry and Hagel, that I am asking about, is that he intended to continue pursuit of a new Resolution at the UN which he did, the lie comes when he said he would exhaust all peaceful means, if Iraq and the UN renewed the inspections.
It can hardly be a ‘mistake’ to not recognize the inspections and the success they were achieving.
Bush lied prior to and after that he wanted to exhaust peaceful means.
If you think that was not a lie, the please explain how it was not.
So it’s acceptable to gamble that the current President was such a man of integrity (or judgement), with a war on the line? Again, the greater the stakes, the greater the burden of responsiblity on all parties.
Of course there is, because each must work with the other. Congress can pass laws, but not carry them out. The President can enforce laws, but not create them. Congress can declare wars but not fight them, the President can fight wars but not declare them. And so and so on. They aren’t fiefs that can ignore each other, they are parts of a whole.
If the facts are assumed to be good, then why does Congress carry out investigations? They do, after all. Because facts, even those presently earnestly, cannot be assumed to be true, particularly when an error would have a great cost (such as a war, for instance).
Kerry is speaking at a hearing, about an exchange that occuring in a private meeting between the President and Congressional leaders. Just for accuracy’s sake. Kerry didn’t have that exchange with Bush during a hearing.
Reagan lied to the Tower Commission, Nixon lied throughout Watergate and resigned as impeachment proceedings were beginning, and Clinton lied to the public and in testimony during the Lewinsky scandal.
Ok. It’s not difficult, after all.
A president is eager to engage in warfare in a distant region of the world, which poses no direct threat to the U.S., for reasons that he believes are valid. Trouble is, he needs Congress to pass a resolution authorizing the use of military force. To secure that authorization, he either lets himself believe obviously false information, or lies, to Congress and to the American people. Overly-broad authorization in hand, said President engages in a decade-plus, costly war with dubious benefits and great costs.
The U.S. had been down this road before, and we fell for it again. This time, the boogeyman was terrorists instead of Communists, and the death toll wasn’t as severe, but it’s the same damn thing.
I don’t know if it was a lie or not. If you’re convinced Iraq has mobile labs, and UNMOVIC isn’t finding them after several months, you might reasonably conclude that UNMOVIC wasn’t up to the task, and that Hussein was concealing his biological weapons labs because he intended to use biological weapons soon. The only way to halt this occurance might be to invade Iraq.
That is, in Bush’s opinion peaceful means had been exhausted, if the inspections weren’t finding the things Bush believed existed. Trouble was, they did not.
Yes, that is what I quoted. She’s not accusing Bush of lying, she’s accusing him of being wrong, due to errors in thinking.
So with all the private and public announcements by Bush, that he wanted to exhaust all peaceful means in order to avoid war, but achieve certainty that Iraq was disarmed of WMD through diplomatic means in accordance with the UN inspection process; you are stating that when Bush kicked the succeeding UN inspectors out to start a war; that his decision was a sane decision?