# NotfooledbyW....AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 20, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475 "2013-06-20T16:02:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 43
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/841 "2013-07-31T14:23:57Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > It was deceptive and malicious to play the rational role when asking for an AUMF as Bush did by declaring that he wanted peaceful disarming of Iraq and Congress showing solidarity with the President was the best means to achieve removal of the threat without war. And he may have meant it sincerely, he may not have been playing at anything. I’m not convinced, as some others are, that Bush was dead-set on war well before September, though there is some evidence of that, and some of it is pretty strong, I admit. The thought process may have gone something like this: 1. Iraq must be disarmed of their WMDs, they are dangerous and defying international law. 2. The inspections found no WMDs of note. 3. Therefore, Iraq is hiding them. 4. Therefore, only a war will remove the threat of a WMD-armed Hussein. Obviously, #3 is where the thought process goes off the rails. The combination of the exceptionally difficulty of proving a negative, confirmation bias, distrust of the U.N. and faith in CIA intel, existing distrust of and contempt for Hussein, and a few minor examples of non-cooperation would have formed a potent cocktail: belief that Iraq was concealing weapons from the inspectors. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > In context the above is much more rational than Bush proclaiming that SH must be removed and Bush was already authorized to do it. I don’t follow you here, could you rephrase? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The Levin Amendment may have had a more rational appeal to some but there were not enough in the House, and Bush was not likely to accept it. As I wrote before, if Bush vetoes the Levin Amendment, that’s fine! Let him feel the heat of the Iraq-is-a-threat fire that he himself stoked, when the American people, who wanted cooperation with the U.N., see him refuse to pursue U.N. inspections despite Congress giving him a war authorization, just one with a reasonable limit. One can only image what the New York Times would have to say about a veto. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And also the Levin Amendment put the decision for national security not in the President’s hand, but in the UNSC and the veto dead end trap. I don’t believe the Levin Amendment ever had a chance … When Joe Lieberman and others similar were in the Dem Controlled Senate. And if the UNSC fails to act, then Congress can pass a new, broader, authorization, once there is cause to do so. By jumping straight to the if-all-else-fails option of vesting the war power in Bush, Congress allowed Bush to also jump straight to the if-all-else-fails option of war. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/842 "2013-07-31T14:36:19Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > This shows the difference between the stooges here and me. You just wrote that Hussein, Most of the American Public and Most of Congress were all irrational with Bush. You are saying that in ignorance of the full reality of what happened and in the context of a shifting and changing situation. I didn’t say anything about the American public. I said the press. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Prior to September 2002, it was Bush alone who was acting irrational. Iraq and the UNSC were in the beginning stages of acting rational. (I consider working toward peaceful disarmament to be rational thinking and working toward violent overthrow if Iraq’s regime to be irrational. So prior to September the UNSC and Iraq were showing signs of rational thought but Bush, and mostly Republicans in Congress were broadly and without any reservation showing irrational thought that an attack by the US was going to happen against Iraq. You are wrong about the general public. The Public was for confrontation on the WMD matter but not sold on war as the means to do it. So let’s say the public was split with one half but probably less was irrational favoring war. The other have favored a broad coalition and UN sanction before going to war. I was in the latter, rational population group. > > Then in September the situation changed. Bush began speaking in rational terms. He claimed he preferred that the UNSC settled the matter of disarmament through peaceful means of diplomacy and a resumption of inspections. That was a 180 flip from an irrational position to a rational, at least in public, position. But remembering just one month earlier the man who had a lot of power and huge megaphone and the bully pulpit and pretty much control of current intelligence on the threat was acting highly irrational and it was a very clear possibility that this most powerful man in the world could do the irrational act and start a war with Iraq at any time he wanted. > > And here is where all you stooges part from me perspective on the war. Now all members of Congress including Democrats like HRC and Kerry had to make a rational choice.. Should we let the pre-September Bush run amok in the world and possibly start a war without a resolution prior to the November mid-term election or shortly thereafter he gets a real AUMF for war with an all Republican pro-war Congress, or do we accept Bush’s conversion to a new path to disarmament that involves a new strong UNSC resolution that demands immediate resumption of inspections and Iraq’s full cooperation toward peaceful disarmament. Linking war to an UNSC resolution; now there’s a thought! If only Congress had that option…:smack: > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You have a limited narrow minded view of events from 2002 to March 2003. I have accepted that members of Congress on the Democratic side made the best choice they could and that going along with the newly defined rational Bush, (because he could possibly start an irrational war at any time without an new AUMF) was a fair and rational choice. Those Democratic Senators who saw it the other way were generally inclined to vote anti-war no matter what. There vote was not wrong or irrational either because it was Bush and Republicans who were using Saddam Hussein as an election prop in a post-911 world. The best choice Congress could have made was passing the Levin Amendment. I don’t know how you think “a real AUMF for war with an all Republican pro-war Congress” would have differed from the AUMF that was passed, which empowered Bush to use military force in Iraq if he determined it was necessary. There’s not much I can imagine that’s broader than that; maybe the “real AUMF for war” would have also given Bush the honorary title of “Grand War Hero” or something. If you think the AUMF constrained Bush in any way, you are selling yourself a lie to avoid criticizing Democrats other than Lieberman, your sacrificial lamb. Here’s my proof: the plain text of the AUMF, and the fact that it did, in fact, allow Bush to start a war. I know because _he started a war._ > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And for having that difference of perspective up to that point… the vote for the AUMF than what has become the dogma on this forum, I am called stupid and crazy, but no proponents of that dogma have challenged credibly my use of facts and the history and the reality of what went down. Well, the reality of what went down is that AUMF authorized Bush to start the war that he started. He sent the letters to the Speaker of the House and president pro tem of the Senate and everything. He incontestably used the AUMF to authorize the invasion. That, it that light, what facts and history suggest that the AUMF didn’t allow him to do that? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And all of you that defend that dogma are distorting the truth about Iraq’s cooperation with UN inspectors to the point that your misinformation and lack of facts and use of half truths and emphasis on the miniscule negatives that happened - are all helping Bush sell that ‘cooperation’ set of lies that Bush and war supporters need. > > The problem with facts about Iraq’s cooperation are all on you. And that is what I am proving here. Eh? What does the AUMF have to do with Iraq’s cooperation with inspection? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/843 "2013-07-31T15:11:48Z")
> [@](#): > > March 4, 2003: Powell Says US Does Not Want War over Iraq > US Secretary of State Colin Powell says, “We would prefer not to have a war. Nobody wants war.” This kind of Bush White House / right wing news media lie and absolute irrational talk should be strongly rejected and rebuked. However it cannot be rejected when so many Americans agree with the propaganda that Iraq did not cooperate well enough so that somehow and in some ways Bush’s decision to end the peaceful process for war was rational and justifiable. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/844 "2013-07-31T15:31:41Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > This kind of Bush White House / right wing news media lie and absolute irrational talk should be strongly rejected and rebuked. However it cannot be rejected when so many Americans agree with the propaganda that Iraq did not cooperate well enough so that somehow and in some ways Bush’s decision to end the peaceful process for war was rational and justifiable. Do you have any numbers you can put with “so many Americans agree…that Iraq did not cooperate well enough [to prevent war]” ? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/845 "2013-07-31T16:07:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Eh? What does the AUMF have to do with Iraq’s cooperation with inspection? The AUMF under the specific “use of force” authorization clause directly and specifically requires Bush, if he has determined to use force, to be enforcing ALL UN Security Council Resolutions. That ties Bush future determination to 1441. And 1441 gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply as long as “cooperation” was sufficiently forthcoming. That is a simple straight forward fact, HA. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/846 "2013-07-31T16:43:24Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The AUMF under the specific “use of force” authorization clause directly and specifically requires Bush, if he has determined to use force, to be enforcing ALL UN Security Council Resolutions. That ties Bush future determination to 1441. And 1441 gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply as long as “cooperation” was sufficiently forthcoming. > > That is a simple straight forward fact, HA. Are you sure you didn’t write 17 additional paragraphs that accidentally got clipped from the end of this post? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/847 "2013-07-31T16:50:43Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The AUMF under the specific “use of force” authorization clause directly and specifically requires Bush, if he has determined to use force, to be enforcing ALL UN Security Council Resolutions. That ties Bush future determination to 1441. And 1441 gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply as long as “cooperation” was sufficiently forthcoming. > > That is a simple straight forward fact, HA. Er, no, it doesn’t. It says: > [@](#): > > (a) Authorization.— The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to— (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. It doesn’t “require” him to do anything, except this: > [@](#): > > (b) Presidential Determination.— In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that— > (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and > (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. THAT is a requirement, note the use of “shall, prior to such exercise”. This: > [@](#): > > (a) Authorization.— The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to— (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. …Is not a requirement, it’s an authorization, to use the Armed Forces to defend the U.S. from Iraq, and/or enforce all relevant UNSC resolutions. Resolutions 660, 678, and 687 were amongst the “all relevant UNSC resolutions”. To act within the authorization given to him by the AUMF, Bush merely had to determine that, in his opinion, the Armed Forces were necessary to enforce 660, 678, and/or 687. Bam. Invasion legal under domestic law. By your logic, Bush couldn’t invade under the AUMF unless it was to enforce _every_ resolution relevant to Iraq, such as [664](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_664), which ordered Iraq to allow foreign nationals to leave Kuwait. Or [665](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_665), which imposed economic sanctions. 664 and 665 are part of “all”, just like 1441 is. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/848 "2013-07-31T17:15:46Z")
It’s be constructive to compare two bills, the Iraq War Resolution as passed: > [@](#): > > SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. > (a) Authorization.— The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to— > (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and > (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. > > (b) Presidential Determination.— In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that— > (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and > > (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. And the [Levin Amendment:](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:1:./temp/~r107HFN6en:e0:) > [@](#): > > SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES PURSUANT TO A NEW UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION. > > ``` > (a) AUTHORIZATION.--Pursuant to a resolution of the United Nations Security Council described in section 2(2) that is adopted after the enactment of this joint resolution, and subject to subsection (b), the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and related facilities, if Iraq fails to comply with the terms of the Security Council resolution. > > (b) REQUIREMENTS.--Before the authority granted in subsection (a) is exercised, the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that the United States has used appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with a resolution of the United Nations Security Council described in section 2(2) and that those efforts have not been and are not likely to be successful in obtaining such compliance. > > ``` Now, you seem to _badly_ want the AUMF to function as the Levin Amendment would have, for whatever reason (to excuse the Democrats who voted for it, to accuse Bush of violating domestic law, whatever it is). But if you just read both, you can see what the Levin Amendment contained that the AUMF did not. It granted authorization only to carry out **new** UNSC resolutions, not “all”, and it limited the authorization to rendering harmless Iraqi WMDs, as opposed to toppling the government and occupying it for years and years. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/849 "2013-07-31T17:27:15Z")
He could have, but at great personal cost. Which the AUMF removed. The AUMF did in fact restrain Bush to enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with the use of force authority that he was granted with regard to Iraq in direct language. Res 1441 had become the governing resolution over all preceding ones. You cannot honestly claim that Bush was enforcing UN Res 1441 when he determined to attack Iraq. If you did you would be arguing against T&D and Ravenman. Bush pissed all over 1441 and the UNSC as a body when he attacked Iraq entirely against the wording set in the language of the AUMF, yet you and others here continue to blame the affirmative voters for the AUMF for putting the decision on Bush’s desk, although it was Bush who shit all over the language put in the AUMF to restrain him. Congress members should not be blamed for the defiant and despicable actions Bush took to launch a war of aggression against Iraq. Since you agree with me that Iraq cooperated sufficiently to avert war, you differ from most here including XT and Mace who have attacked my insistence that Iraq did cooperate sufficiently to avoid according to the majority on the UNSC and Blix and el Baradei themselves. So now by that agreement with me you must now realize that Bush did not in any way ‘enforce’ UN Res 1441 when he used military force against the requirement written into the AUMF. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/850 "2013-07-31T17:39:13Z")
> [@](#): > > It doesn’t “require” him to do anything, except this: -HA. This is where your argument falls down. He’s to file a report it is true, but that does not negate that it stipulates very clearly two reasons for which he is being authorized to use force in the first place. The Authorization to use force clause in an authorization to use force is the meat and potatoes if the document. What you are citing is an absurd self delusion as to what that clause means. Even the clause specifies a requirement that can occur after the decision to enforce UN Resolutions by force has been made and started and is underway. The authorization specifying reasons to use force cannot be over-ridden by a requirement to produce a report on why it was decided to enforce UN Resolutions by force in the first place. You must argue that Bush was indeed enforcing UN Resolution 1441 when he decided to invade. And you can’t. No one here can. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/851 "2013-07-31T17:53:32Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The AUMF did in fact restrain Bush to enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with the use of force authority that he was granted with regard to Iraq in direct language. Res 1441 had become the governing resolution over all preceding ones. Unless it specifically _rescinded_ them, which it did not, then it doesn’t matter for the purposes of the AUMF. Frankly, though, even if 1441 had rescinded all previous Iraq-related resolutions, Bush could still use the AUMF to invade. The text again: > [@](#): > > The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to— (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. 1441 is part of “all”. If, **in Bush’s opinion and Bush’s opinion alone** , it was necessary and appropriate to use the Armed Forces to enforce 1441, the AUMF empowered him to use that force. That is how broadly the AUMF was written. It didn’t matter a whit what the UNSC thought of Iraqi compliance or anything else, the sole Decider was Bush. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You cannot honestly claim that Bush was enforcing UN Res 1441 when he determined to attack Iraq. He wasn’t no. The point is that _he didn’t have to_, under American law. He did under international law, but the day the U.N. uses force against the United States to save a third-world backwater and enforce international law is still a long, long way off. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > If you did you would be arguing against T&D and Ravenman. I think you’ve gotten their arguments entirely wrong. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Bush pissed all over 1441 and the UNSC as a body… He certainly did, whatever his reasons. Blair, too, of course, and a few others. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > …when he attacked Iraq entirely against the wording set in the language of the AUMF,… The wording was that he could use the armed forces “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to…enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” That’s exactly what he did. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > …yet you and others here continue to blame the affirmative voters for the AUMF for putting the decision on Bush’s desk, although it was Bush who shit all over the language put in the AUMF to restrain him. The language patently **didn’t** restrain him, as already pointed out. There’s a stew-pot of blame to go around, it needn’t all be saved for Bush’s bowl. One man does not a war make, not even Hitler or Gavrilo Princip. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Congress members should not be blamed for the defiant and despicable actions Bush took to launch a war of aggression against Iraq. Agreed. They should be blamed for giving Bush the power to undertake those despicable actions. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Since you agree with me that Iraq cooperated sufficiently to avert war, you differ from most here including XT and Mace who have attacked my insistence that Iraq did cooperate sufficiently to avoid according to the majority on the UNSC and Blix and el Baradei themselves. I don’t think that’s what they are saying; they object to your characterizing the cooperation as perfect and immediate, but I don’t recall them saying it was a justification for war. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > So now by that agreement with me you must now realize that Bush did not in any way ‘enforce’ UN Res 1441 when he used military force against the requirement written into the AUMF. No, he sure didn’t, and I never said he did. But, he didn’t have to. He could invade to enforce 660, or 678, or 687, or any other he liked. Or, he could determine that an invasion **was** necessary to enforce 1441. Given that he was the sole person vested with the power to make that determination, he only had to convince himself and no one else. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/852 "2013-07-31T17:56:38Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > This is where your argument falls down. > > He’s to file a report it is true, but that does not negate that it stipulates very clearly two reasons for which he is being authorized to use force in the first place. > > The Authorization to use force clause in an authorization to use force is the meat and potatoes if the document. > > What you are citing is an absurd self delusion as to what that clause means. > > Even the clause specifies a requirement that can occur after the decision to enforce UN Resolutions by force has been made and started and is underway. > > The authorization specifying reasons to use force cannot be over-ridden by a requirement to produce a report on why it was decided to enforce UN Resolutions by force in the first place. > > You must argue that Bush was indeed enforcing UN Resolution 1441 when he decided to invade. And you can’t. No one here can. Question: Under the AUMF, who got to decide whether 1441, or any other resolution, needed to be enforced by the Armed Forces of the United States? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/853 "2013-08-01T01:33:24Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Question: Under the AUMF, who got to decide whether 1441, or any other resolution, needed to be enforced by the Armed Forces of the United States? The \*\*only correct answer \*\*to your question is at least nine of the fifteen members sitting on the UN Security Council plus no veto from any of the five permanent members on the Council. Do you disagree with what Ravenman posted on this message board back in March 2003, just nine days before Bush’s final days of decision to piss on the AUMF and piss on the UNSC RES 1441 and attack Iraq entirely on his own. > [@](#): > > If the UN is to be considered relevant, as President Bush often declares his preference, one cannot do so by figuring out ways to “get past” the UN Charter, or UN resolutions for that matter. I don’t understand how someone can read the totality of the UN Charter and come to some other conclusion than that \*\*a country cannot take military action against another unless (a) it is authorized by the Security Council \*\*or (b) it is in response to an actual, not a future, threat, and under such a case the matter should immediately be referred to the Security Council. > > In my view, \*\*if we wish to proceed with a sense of legitimacy \*\*to our military actions, there is a process that we must go through, and that process includes both the Congress and the United Nations. One down, one to go. > > But the current situation seems to be that we will proceed with an attack, and some motions are being made \*\*to find a loophole in the Charter or UN resolutions \*\*that would justify that action. I fail to see how those attempts stand up to scrutiny. > > …This coming war with Iraq **will not be explicitly authorized by the UN, and thus will be contrary to the intentions of those who drafted the UN Charter** , among them many legends of American statesmanship. Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 3110887) 03-10-2003 02:42 PM. > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...eply&p=3110887](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...eply&p=3110887) There is no way that Bush could be ‘enforcing’ UN Res 1441 because 1441 was a Resolution that ‘offered’ (with Bush’s endorsement and per Bush’s request) Iraq a FINAL OPPORTUNITY to comply with its disarmament obligations and all preceding UN Resolutions with regard to Iraq. The UNSC did not in any way withdraw that final opportunity to Iraq and decide that US ARMED FORCES could ‘enforce’ one single UN Resolution with regard to Iraq. To state that Bush was enforcing UNSC Resolutions as the was required to do according to the language in the AUMF Oct 2002, is a blatant stretch of the language under the "authorization to use force **IN ORDER TO:** clause in the AUMF. I cited something from Ravenman where he and I are in agreement… And here is something where HA and I are in agreement. > [@](#): > > Under the AUMF, all any president needs to do to make war on any nation, organization, or person is make that determination. … So, if Bush was willing to lie (perish the thought!) and didn’t get the Iraq War Resolution, he could have invaded Iraq under the 2001 AUMF, and dared Congress to repeal it. -Human Action 07-25-2013 10:20 PM Do you stand by that statement HA? Just need to be sure. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/854 "2013-08-01T01:59:31Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Question: Under the AUMF, who got to decide whether 1441, or any other resolution, needed to be enforced by the Armed Forces of the United States? Ravenman answered your question pretty well in my preceding post. Here is another from Ravenman back in the FINAL DAYS of DECISION: > [@](#): > > The point is well taken that 1441 notes that there are no-fly zones in effect. However, **that resolution does not have any automaticity in authorizing the use of force by member states.** This was acknowledged by Ambassador Negroponte at the time the resolution was passed. > … Even more generally, if one accepts the legal (as opposed to moral or practical) legitimacy of the United Nations, it is extremely difficult to see how there can be any other ultimate authority on the meaning and intent of actions by the UN, aside from UN bodies themselves. That a single country can seek to define the meaning, intent, and application of the UN Charter or UN resolutions would contradict the acknowledgement of legal legitimacy. -Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 2893332) 01-23-2003, 07:31 PM So according to Ravenman (and I agree), Res 1441 “does not have any automaticity in authorizing the use of force by member states” so it is impossible that Bush was ‘enforcing 1441’ in any way. Bush was ‘enforcing’ the Bush Doctrine And if Ravenman is not enough for you H.A., then T&D also explain it well back in the day: > [@](#): > > When pushing for the war on Iraq, U.S. spokespersons verbally agreed to the demands of France that **1441 could not be an automatic trigger for invasion**. Following which, Bush began sending troops to Iraq in such force that it was clear that there would be an invasion, regardless. > > Then, when pushing for the second (failed) resolution, Bush declared that he could use 1441 to justify an invasion, despite the earlier (spoken, not written) comments and **despite the fact that Blix and company had not filed their own final reports**. - Originally Posted by tomndebb (Post 3276812) ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/855 "2013-08-01T02:48:15Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Since you agree with me that Iraq cooperated sufficiently to avert war, you differ from most here including XT and Mace who have attacked my insistence that Iraq did cooperate sufficiently to avoid (war) according to the majority on the UNSC and Blix and el Baradei themselves. -NotfooledbyW 07-31-2013 01:27 PM > > I don’t think that’s what they are saying; they object to your characterizing the cooperation as perfect and immediate, but I don’t recall them saying it was a justification for war. -Human Action 07-31-2013 01:53 PM If you can find where I ever have said the cooperation was ‘perfect’ you need to cite it. Try sticking to facts about what I have written. On the matter of whether the cooperation was immediate I have never denied what Blix said and have cited his full comments about that many times. What I point out was that when he mentioned ‘immediate’ it was not in reference to all cooperation, it was in reference to Iraq’s ‘initiatives on longstanding unresolved issues’ and I point out the fact that Blix called that proactive cooperation and I also pointed out many times that Blix said early on that Iraq’s cooperation on access to sites was immediate with a few relatively minor exceptions. You should be ashamed of yourself trying to defend these two bozos. XT supported the war but turned against it when the cost to benefit ratio became apparent that it wouldn’t work out. And Mace said immediately following the invasion that it was justified because SH was a nasty man… (Not a direct quote) and did make nice with the UNSC for a decade. If these two stooges agreed with me that Iraq cooperated sufficiently to avoid war, I would not be attacked relentlessly since I came here posting in agreement with Tony Sinclair last February, for saying exactly that. You have seen what’s been going on here. Here’s the post by Tony Sinclair in case you forgot about it or missed it entirely: > [@](#): > > The authorization bill did not simply say, “Let’s invade Iraq!” On the contrary, it authorized Bush to use military force only after he certified in writing that nothing short of war could keep America safe from Iraq. > > At the time of the vote, there had been no outside inspectors in Iraq for four years, and it was the responsible thing to do for Congress to assume the worst. The only information they had about Iraq was the estimates and guesses of our intelligence community, so they had no choice but to trust them. Although the NIE showed that there was more uncertainty about WMDs than Bush and Cheney portrayed, people responsible for the security of the US had to err on the side of caution. > > **And the bill worked perfectly. It forced Saddam to allow the UN inspectors back in,** and even to allow them complete access to previously forbidden areas, like the Presidential compounds. > > It only took a few weeks of inspections to prove that our intelligence was wrong, and that Chalabi’s defectors were liars. It only took a few months to prove that there were no large active WMD programs or stockpiles at all. And according to Blix, it would only have taken a few more months to have completely accounted for the WMDs that we knew Saddam had in the 1980s. > So by early March 2003, the Democrats could take great satisfaction in the October 2002 vote. It had accomplished its goals, resulting in a sure knowledge, for the first time in decades, that Iraq was no threat to the US and then Bush ignored all the work of the UN inspectors, declared in writing that nothing short of war could protect the US against Saddam’s pickup truck army, and invaded anyway. > **Hillary was absolutely correct.** The problem was not in the vote, but\*\* in the way Bush abused the authority it gave him.\*\* . -TonySinclair 02-19-2013 05:16 PM Hubris-060 050p0516 “Cite” Mace’s admitted viewpoint in April 2003 was that toppling the Hussein regime was ‘justified’ because SH defied the UNSC for so long. XT has written that he doesn’t care at all about inspections. Here are XT’s exact words in response to my saying that the inspections were ‘working’. > [@](#): > > I didn’t CARE if the inspections were working or not (I didn’t think they were, but didn’t really care at the time one way or another). My feeling at the time was that the UN was basically worthless and Saddam was pulling the wool over their eyes, but that WMD was just a pretext anyway. -XT 07-24-2013 09:47 AM That is not objecting to your phony and fraudulent impression that I characterized the cooperation as perfect and immediate as I explained why above, It is even worse idiocy to be thinking that the cooperation Iraq provided during the 1441 inspections didn’t matter. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/856 "2013-08-01T12:24:28Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The \*\*only correct answer \*\*to your question is at least nine of the fifteen members sitting on the UN Security Council plus no veto from any of the five permanent members on the Council. Nope, sorry. The AUMF reads “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to…enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq” The President. As he determines to be necessary and appropriate. To enforce all relevant UNSC resolutions. So no, the UNSC doesn’t get to decide whether the Armed Forces of the United States get deployed. The AUMF vested that power with the President and the President alone. Just read the text, for Pete’s sake. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Do you disagree with what Ravenman posted on this message board back in March 2003, just nine days before Bush’s final days of decision to piss on the AUMF and piss on the UNSC RES 1441 and attack Iraq entirely on his own. No, I don’t disagree with that, but he’s not talking about the war being illegal under American law (i.e., the AUMF), he’s talking about it being illegal under international law, and specifically the UN Charter. I don’t disagree, and never have, that the war was probably illegal under international law, and a violation of the UN charter (with a bit of wiggle room due to resolution 678). > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > There is no way that Bush could be ‘enforcing’ UN Res 1441 because 1441 was a Resolution that ‘offered’ (with Bush’s endorsement and per Bush’s request) Iraq a FINAL OPPORTUNITY to comply with its disarmament obligations and all preceding UN Resolutions with regard to Iraq. The UNSC did not in any way withdraw that final opportunity to Iraq and decide that US ARMED FORCES could ‘enforce’ one single UN Resolution with regard to Iraq. To state that Bush was enforcing UNSC Resolutions as the was required to do according to the language in the AUMF Oct 2002, is a blatant stretch of the language under the "authorization to use force **IN ORDER TO:** clause in the AUMF. That doesn’t matter. I don’t know how else to break it to you: the AUMF gave **Bush** the power to determine if the armed forces were necessary to enforce UNSC resolutions, and not just 1441, at that. Refusing to see that “some” is a subset of “all”, or that “Final Opportunity” doesn’t mean “All previous resolutions are rescinded”, is just willful ignorance. What is your motive? Is it not enough that Bush violated international law, he’s such a villain that he must have also violated domestic law? Is he such a villain that all accusations of wrongdoing are justified, even the handful that aren’t true? Are you defending the Democrats in Congress who voted for the AUMF? What’s your deal? Once more: that was the difference between the Levin Amendment and the AUMF we got. Remember this post? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And also the Levin Amendment put the decision for national security not in the President’s hand, but in the UNSC and the veto dead end trap. You were right. And the AUMF that passed _did_ put the decision for national security in the President’s hands. He chose war. For that fleeting moment, you grasped the difference between the Levin Amendment and the AUMF. Can you not bring yourself to do it again? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Do you stand by that statement HA? Just need to be sure. I do, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/857 "2013-08-01T12:27:34Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Ravenman answered your question pretty well in my preceding post. Here is another from Ravenman back in the FINAL DAYS of DECISION: > > So according to Ravenman (and I agree), Res 1441 “does not have any automaticity in authorizing the use of force by member states” so it is impossible that Bush was ‘enforcing 1441’ in any way. > > Bush was ‘enforcing’ the Bush Doctrine > > And if Ravenman is not enough for you H.A., then T&D also explain it well back in the day: Yeah, they are talking about 1441. 1441 didn’t authorize the use of force by member states, no. You know what did authorize the use of force? The Iraq War Resolution. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/858 "2013-08-01T12:37:08Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > If you can find where I ever have said the cooperation was ‘perfect’ you need to cite it. Try sticking to facts about what I have written. On the matter of whether the cooperation was immediate I have never denied what Blix said and have cited his full comments about that many times. What I point out was that when he mentioned ‘immediate’ it was not in reference to all cooperation, it was in reference to Iraq’s ‘initiatives on longstanding unresolved issues’ and I point out the fact that Blix called that proactive cooperation and I also pointed out many times that Blix said early on that Iraq’s cooperation on access to sites was immediate with a few relatively minor exceptions. Meh, that’s between you three. Just giving my two cents. I don’t disagree that Iraq cooperated well within the bounds of what was reasonable to avoid war. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You should be ashamed of yourself trying to defend these two bozos. XT supported the war but turned against it when the cost to benefit ratio became apparent that it wouldn’t work out. And Mace said immediately following the invasion that it was justified because SH was a nasty man… (Not a direct quote) and did make nice with the UNSC for a decade. They can both read and understand others’ posts, so they have that going for them. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > If these two stooges agreed with me that Iraq cooperated sufficiently to avoid war, I would not be attacked relentlessly since I came here posting in agreement with Tony Sinclair last February, for saying exactly that. You have seen what’s been going on here. That’s not what they’ve disagreed with you on. I agree with you on that point, and yet I still objected to your characterizing Iraqi compliance as a “fact”, because it’s just not. They aren’t disagreeing with you on your broad conclusions, which is what makes this discussion rather silly. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Mace’s admitted viewpoint in April 2003 was that toppling the Hussein regime was ‘justified’ because SH defied the UNSC for so long. That’s a legitimate viewpoint. Removing dictators is a moral good. I don’t agree with him that it’s a moral justification for war in the absence of an immediate threat, but I can respect his opinion. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > That is not objecting to your phony and fraudulent impression that I characterized the cooperation as perfect and immediate as I explained why above, It is even worse idiocy to be thinking that the cooperation Iraq provided during the 1441 inspections didn’t matter. Well, if the WMD issues were just a pre-text for war, then no, the cooperation wouldn’t matter, in the sense that there’s no outcome of the inspections that wouldn’t have led to war. That’s what “pretext” means in that context. Remember the [Gleiwitz incident?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident) That was also a pretext for war, there’s nothing Poland could have done or said that would have prevented being invaded. Iraq was in a similar position; it’s the _why_ of it that deserves discussion. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/859 "2013-08-01T16:58:36Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Mace’s admitted viewpoint in April 2003 was that toppling the Hussein regime was ‘justified’ because SH defied the UNSC for so long. -Ntfldbw > > That’s a legitimate viewpoint. Removing dictators is a moral good. I don’t agree with him that it’s a moral justification for war in the absence of an immediate threat, but I can respect his opinion. HA Don’t be rediculous. We all surely agree that taking out Saddam Hussein could be a moral good. That was not Mace’s written word. Do you really respect an opinion that is based on Mace’s ignorance of the reality that the Post-1441 inspections and Iraq’s cooperation were working sufficient to avert war? You missed Mace’s rationale and the point I am making. Mace’s point is illegitimate as well as stupid. He made the point that Bush was justified to start the war because SH had been defying the UNSC for years regarding his disarmament obligations on WMD and inspections. Since you agree with me that inspections were working I doubt you really agree with Mace that Bush was justified to invade based upon SH’s inspection violation issues over the previous decade. But let’s keep pretending you respect Mace’s Stupid Conclusion justifying the 2003 invasion of Iraq after the fact. Why would you not respect HRC’s decision to vote to authorize the use military force if Iraq did not agree to allow the UNSC to bring Iraq into compliance with international law and Iraq’s disarmament obligations? I ask that again while pointing out again that when HRC made her choice there were two factors not in play when Mace justified the invasion. First, Iraq was in violation of international law because the inspections had ceased. And secondly it could not be assuredly known in October 2002 if Bush was going to invade Iraq based upon the 2001 AUMF that was already given to Bush after the 9/11 attacks. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/860 "2013-08-01T18:07:14Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Don’t be rediculous. We all surely agree that taking out Saddam Hussein could be a moral good. That was not Mace’s written word. Well, he wrote: > [@John Mace](#): > > I think it’s justified to overthrow a brutal dictator like SH. It would be justified for the US to overthrow the Kim regime in NK, too. > > But just because it’s justified doesn’t mean it’s wise. It was not wise for the US to invade Iraq and I don’t think it would be wise to invade NK now, either. I consider that a reasonable argument, even though I disagree with it. [QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] Do you really respect an opinion that is based on Mace’s ignorance of the reality that the Post-1441 inspections and Iraq’s cooperation were working sufficient to avert war? [/quote] I don’t think he’s ignorant of that at all. If he wrote that war was justified because of Iraqi defiance of post-1441 inspections, I must have missed that post. Perhaps you could point me to it. [QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] You missed Mace’s rationale and the point I am making. Mace’s point is illegitimate as well as stupid. He made the point that Bush was justified to start the war because SH had been defying the UNSC for years regarding his disarmament obligations on WMD and inspections. [/quote] Thus, Hussein, in addition to being a brutal, murderous dictator, had a history of not only aggressive war, but of defiance of treaties and international law. I can certainly understand the case for all that justifying a war to remove Hussein, even if, again, I personally disagree. I don’t want the United States to be in the business of choosing the leaders of other nations except in the face of an immediate threat. [QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] Since you agree with me that inspections were working I doubt you really agree with Mace that Bush was justified to invade based upon SH’s inspection violation issues over the previous decade. [/quote] I don’t agree with him, no, as I already wrote. I just consider his position reasonable. [QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] But let’s keep pretending you respect Mace’s Stupid Conclusion justifying the 2003 invasion of Iraq after the fact. Why would you not respect HRC’s decision to vote to authorize the use military force if Iraq did not agree to allow the UNSC to bring Iraq into compliance with international law and Iraq’s disarmament obligations? [/quote] Because the authorization she voted for and championed allowed Bush and Bush alone to determine if there was to be a war or not. I wrote in the Hubris thread about the importance of the separation of powers of government. What the AUMF did was to effectively delegate Congress’ power to declare war on Iraq to the President. Such power should never been given to one person, which is why the Constitution separated the war power between Congress and the President. The various defenses, such as that a Republican majority was likely on its way into Congress, or that Bush refused to go to the UN without the authorization he demanded, are utterly unpersuasive. It would frankly have been better if the war were a purely Republican affair, because that would make it easier to escape. And as I wrote a few posts ago, it was Bush who raised the spector of the danger of Iraqi WMDs. For him to then _refuse to do anything about it_ because of a quibble with Congress would be slitting his own throat. I say let him do it, and see who blinks first. The Levin Amendment, or better still, no prior authorization at all, was the right course. War powers shouldn’t be delegated to a war-monger, or any individual, and wars don’t need to be pre-approved months in advance. If the UN were to refuse to pass 1441 without the U.S. President having a war authorization in hand, then they truly are worthless and we’d be better off alone. If Hussein were to refuse inspections because the U.S. President didn’t have a war authorization in hand, one would swiftly be passed and his country would be crushed below the mightiest armed force on the globe, and I’m certain he was well aware of that, based on his near-total efforts to avoid that outcome. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I ask that again while pointing out again that when HRC made her choice there were two factors not in play when Mace justified the invasion. > > First, Iraq was in violation of international law because the inspections had ceased. The AUMF was not needed to resume inspections. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And secondly it could not be assuredly known in October 2002 if Bush was going to invade Iraq based upon the 2001 AUMF that was already given to Bush after the 9/11 attacks. Using that AUMF required Bush to determine that Iraq was involved in 9/11. It gave him the sole power to make that determination, granted, but doing so in the absence of any evidence linking Iraq to 9/11 would be nothing less than a scandal. Why spare him that ordeal by giving him an AUMF that required him only to determine that force was needed to defend the nation or enforce UNSC resolutions? There _was_ WMD intel, after all, shoddy as it was; the same can’t be said of 9/11 evidence. The AUMF made it vastly easier for Bush to invade…so how on earth could it be said to prevent him from doing so? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=42) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=44)