I support the language that directed Bush to ‘enforce all UN Resolutions - which he did not enforce ANY… Not a freakin’ ONE.
You have failed to explain how anyone supported or opposed paperwork that emerged from closed door negotiations between the WH plus the Senate and House leaders. There is a huge difference between supporting it… and accepting something that happened as a reality and then figuring out the best move with regard to that reality. And that was to realize that the AUMF did in fact restrain Bush to use force only to enforce UN Resolutions, and that it was not the AUMF at fault, it was Bush the liar’s fault.
So prior to the war the emphasis should have been on getting the truth out that SH was cooperating.
I know you don’t think Bush lied about WMD… but if you had any sense you could see that Bush lied about Iraq not cooperating with the 1441 inspection regime.
And another thing… this from your 2007 post:
Does that mean the White House could have started war at any time without bothering with the whole messy UNSC thing, like under the War Powers Act?
If Bush “intended to prosecute” an invasion of Iraq regardless of any restraint Congress could put on him, then what is your entire point? I think Bush was forced to take cover of going through the UN because Blair forced that upon him.
Many members of Congress like Lieberman were gung ho for war… but not all. But some of those could not be certain that Bush was not crazy enough to send some advance forces in, and get the ground war rolling and then, take some casualties and … it wouldn’t take much to get a full authorization to ‘avenge’ the deaths of a few US troops killed, when the time had come to go all out to rid the world of an evil that no one could refuse to support.
The AUMF produced what it was supposed to produce. It is just that Bush lied about Iraq’s cooperation.