Now, that’s just funny. Bush will be compelled by Blix to vote a certain way in the UNSC?
So, you do think it was Blix, and not the UNSC, who was the ultimate decider as to whether SH was in “full compliance” with UNSC resolutions. I thought we were making progress earlier when you agreed that was not the case, but it seems that fact now comes in conflict with your need to justify how you were Fooled By W, and so you reverse course and disregards facts in favor of your pre-determined world view.
Blix makes a report of his findings to the UNSC. Only the UNSC can determine whether “full compliance” has been met. You will never hear Blix use that term, and he shouldn’t.
How would I be responsible for the war? What mistake did I make? I did not vote for any Republucan representatives or senators or Bush. My congressional district in Northern Va and my two US Senators were all pro war Republicans. They thought the invasion of Iraq was legitimate and still is legitimate like John Mace does. I have never thought the decision to invade Iraq was necessary, legitimate, ethical, rational, proper or wise or justified.
So Ravenman, do you agree with Mace in his 2003 post below that invading Iraq in March 2003 was both legitimate and justified because “S.H. did his best to violate the letter and the spirit of that disarmament plan”? I sure don’t agree with any of that Bush excuse bill crap? Why would you?
That is not what I wrote. You are not very intelligent are you.
Here is what I wrote from what you cited:
Now read what I wrote and get back to me on that. There is no UNSC vote required to begin relieving sanctions on Iraq if Iraq is fully complied with UNMOVIC and the IAEA.
You supported the war authorization, which was the key legal authority allowing Bush to go to war. For all you want to talk about UN resolutions, you’re on the wrong side of history and facts for supporting the constitutional basis for an unjustified war.
You are the one closest to Bush’s position, not John or me.
What does one do or not do to have actually and actively supported or not have supported the Iraq AUMF as it was moving through negotiations between the Congress and the Administration in September/October 2002?
My commentary and assessments here have been in regards to what occurred after the AUMF(if necessary) was passed. I have explained that my recollected impression of the Bush Administration’s behavior prior to the vote was that they were behaving irrationally in the wake of the 9/11 attack. They were being neocon-crazed whackoes for tying Iraq to al Qaeda and making claims that the continuous threat from Iraq had risen from containable on September 10, 2001 to a serious and unallowable threat on September 12, 2001 that must be confronted immediately. But I did recognize the reality that irrational elected Republicans plus Joe Lieberman were in the driver’s seat with regards to getting an AUMF passed by a Republican controlled House and a somewhat hawkish Democrat controlled but divided on Party line Senate. That vote was rushed and forced into play less than a month before the mid-term elections. The first national elections since the 9/11 attacks.
With all that reality prior to the AUMF vote that many here refuse to reciognize it is no wonder that Ravenman has confused himself into thinking that accepting the outcome of the WH press for an AUMF is identical or similar to supporting the AUMF that was passed.
It’s not. There is no correlation.
My point about the AUMF after the vote is that Saddam Hussein was in violation of international law at that time. A vote for war could be justified under those circumstances. But that authorization was available to Bush only if it was on the condition of enforcing all relevant UN Resolutions with regard to Iraq.
And the trouble is that Bush sought and received UN Res 1441 but invaded Iraq in defiance of 1441. Bush went outside the AUMF instead of adhere to it when he was not enforcing UN Resolution 1441 at the time of the invasion.
Had Bush adhered to the AUMF as written there would have been no path to war, at least according to the law. So it is wrong to condemn the AUMF as Bush’s easy path to war when he basically shit on it just like he shat on 1441.
And when Bush decided to use military force it was open and clear to most people who thought about such things Iraq was much much less a threat with UN inspectors in Iraq and for sure Iraq was not in violation of international law during March 2003 in contrast to the fact that he was in violation of international law in October 2002 when the AUMF was passed.
So, if you were in Congress at the time, you would have voted to authorize an unjustified war.
And then when it turns out that you did something stupid, your lame excuse would be that you voted for the war before you figured out it was the wrong thing to do.
You should be ashamed. That’s so disingenuous that it is almost another one of your numerous lies… but it doesn’t quite rise to that level.
Congratulations, your BS-to-honesty ratio has just improved from 110:1 to 105:1.
I was not in Congress at the time. But you are too stupid to understand that at the time of the vote it would not have been an unjustified war. Iraq was in violation of international law and the vast majority of Congress members saw that violation of international law would have justified war. That is if Iraq did not submit to inspections.
But the truth and reality is that Iraq did submit to inspections and was not in violation of international law when Bush decided to start a war.
Your ignorance is astounding in that you refuse to admit that war was not justified when inspecters were disarming Iraq peacefully in 2003.
And you keep your ignorance intact by refusing to accept that Bush did not use military force as the AUMF authorized it. Bush was obligated to use force to enforce All UNSC resolutions. So blaming the AUMF knowing that Bush went around it is kissing Bush’s ass and giving him a pass for starting a war that did not need to happen and wouldn’t have if Bush were held to comply with the AUMF.
Your buddy Mace says the war was justified and legitimate knowing for several months that Bush forced the peaceful inspections to stop and Bush
Lied about Saddam’s cooperation.
You could not kiss Bush’slying ass any better than that.
Saying the war was legit and justified is what Bush wants everyone to believe,
I will never say it like your buddy Mace does. And you are fine with Mace but not with me.
Who are you trying to kid? That doesn’t make it justified.
I see you are back to completely fabricating things. Three days ago you were basically calling me out of touch because I said the war was never justified, even in October 2002 when Congress was voting. Now you make up some other BS lie that contradicts your previous fabrications.
Plus, I love it how you make it out like John Mace supported the invasion. Let me tell you, PantsNotNotOnFireBecauseOfW, he’s been around here a long time and his views on the war were posted here 10 years ago. His position is not what you’re saying it is, so it’s yet another one of your damned lies.
And who in the hell are you to decide that? The reality of 2002 was that much more than 2/3 of Americans along with their collective representatives in Congress and the White House expressed their view that Iraq’s violation of international law had to be confronted and by military force if necessary.
Neither John Mace or XT agrees with you on that. You are a cling on to your own self importance who thinks you are one of the few that knew that Bush would act outside the authority granted him in the AUMF that included limiting the authority to enforcing all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq, which should have included 1441 when it passed and Iraq complied with 1441.
You do not accept that well working peaceful inspections are a substantial legal and moral reason why Bush’s decision to start a war despite those peaceful working inspections, is not justified.
You cling to your false belief that nobody should have or honestly could have believed that the use of force against Iraq was justified if Saddam Hussen continued to be defiant against being lawfully disarmed by the international community of nations in accordance with international law.
Your attitude emits a ‘piss on international law’ aroma when a jackass like Hussein jerked the UNSC around for years as he did, and you condemn thoughtful people who saw the threat of force as a way to shut this jackass down and get into compliance with international law.
You won’t admit the plan put into effect showed real signs of progress and peaceful resolution. And then you wont accept that a president of the USA decided to piss on international law and diplomacy as a ‘first resort’ when diplomacy was beginning to bear results worth having.
It is hard for you to accept that peaceful constructive inspections were working because it takes away your holy righteous sainthood.
And John Mace says the war was justified because Saddam Hussein kept pissing on international law and you are ok with that when Mace says it. So what are we to think?
Mace said it after seeing or should have seen about three months of peaceful inspections that meant SH was running out of piss.
For all my talk about the UN you say?
“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.” -Ravenman 03-10-2003 02:42 PM
Bush 'pissed all over the ‘one to go’ so what happened to that Ravenman?
The (AUMF ‘the one down’) required Bush to BE ENFORCING the (‘one to go’ Res 1441) to use military force. It says so right here:
And now Ravenman thinks it abhorrent and stupid to suggest that Bush defied both the AUMF and 1441 when he decided to end UN inspections in order to disarm Iraq violently and by the means of war.
And what does, “supporting the constitutional basis for an unjustified war” mean? Bush was not being constitutional when he decided to invade Iraq in defiance of 1441 and thus in violation of ALL UNSC relevant Resolutions regarding Iraq. Bush violated the constitutional terms of the AUMF simultaneously with a violation of the UN Charter and you file complaints against me for what Bush and only Bush did.
No one made Bush do what he did.
What is up with that?
I’m saying literally the exact same thing today, and you’re too stupid to understand that.
Now run off and spend another five hours searching my old posts. Look for the one where I made a crack about a 19th century postmaster general. That totally ruled.