Yes, it was a blank check. It was called a blank check at the time it was passed.
Plus, the fact that the AUMFAI did not stop Bush from going to war indicates it was a blank check. The fact that Bush suffered no legal consequences from Congress or the Judiciary for this made-up violation of the AUMFAI is conclusive evidence that it was a blank check.
Just think of it this way: we know that Bush’s actions under the AUMFAI were legal because the Congress never voted to say that they were illegal.
You know, it’s your same argument flipped around: you think Saddam was complying with inspections in March 2003 because the Security Council never voted to the contrary.
But I did not support an AUMF that gave Bush a Blank check. I did not support any AUMF while negotiations were underway. Who could support what was going on behind closed doors or who could stop it? Surely not you or R&D or Ravenman or Mace. I did not support the final version until the UNSC passed 1441 which basically was a follow up to the AUMF and meant now was the time to hold Bush accountable to his promises to work with the UN.
This debate is about holding Bush accountable after the inevitable reality happened where Bush got an AUMF that he really didn’t need to get to start a war if Iraq remained outside of the law for much mire time.
So many here do not hold Bush accountable beyond hyping the WMD threat and forcing a vote to authorize an invasion. Bush’s lies were minimal prior to the vote. It was after the AUMF and then 1441 that the lying was really ratcheted up.
It is the post-1441 period that many here pass over because their one tracked self-congratulatory minds are fixated entirely on the AUMF and how their opinion was the only one that was correct.
Bush played them for fools and they can’t admit it.
I have not argued the legality in terms of Congress recognizing it, because the Republican controlled Congress never would pursue such a course based on the law. I am saying that when the AUMF was written it was when it was probably the best language the Congress could negotiate with Bush because there was a sense that Bush, following Cheney’s lead, would get the war he wanted anyway.
But to claim the AUMF was a blank check for war is a false statement because the language does tie Bush to enforcing all UNSC Resolutions.
The Security Council never had to vote as long as the majority were satisfied that 1441 remain fully activated.
You alluded to this back in the 2002 2003 period.
one down and one to go or something like that.
You can’t back your opinions by the language of the AUMF. I am not presenting an opinion based upon opinions. I am presenting a fact based upon the written word.
Perhaps what you say did not happen would have happened if enough opponents of the invasion had pulled their heads out of their asses and stopped pouting about what happened in October and started thinking about what happened in January through March in conjunction with the actual language written in the AUMF.
I did what I could do. I wrote to both my Senators to the White House and to the newspapers that Iraq was cooperating and the public US and UK intel claims were shot down by inspectors. Bush would be a fool to end the inspections.
Senator John Warner replied- Thank you for your support of the President in these difficult times, blah blah blah.
The language in the AUMF is written. Saddam cooperated better than ever and resolution was within a reasonable range.
If Bush’s lies about cooperation were ever to be confronted and it were pointed out what he was supposed to do according to the AUMF, then at least more people would Learn the truth.
Too many don’t want that truth out.
Including so many here who resist it as if it were an affront to their religion.
This is not a debate. This is a thread where people take their frustrations out on you for being so thick-headed. I’m sure you think you’re continuing the same debate you always want to have, but we’re just pointing out how wrong you are and how dishonest your “debate” style is.
For this to be a debate I would have to have able minded debaters opposing me. And you having considered the invasion of Iraq to be legitimate and justified after knowing the level of cooperation that the UN inspectors were given by Iraq, shows why you are not able-minded at all. So what just your point about proving me wrong. I never ever would it did think invading Iraq was justified it legitimate.
My God man, what were you thinking?
Given that NFbW not only supported the AUMF at the time but is continuing to try to justify it, I’m going to withdraw my characterization of his username as ‘ironic.’ Only problem is that I can’t decide if the proper adjective for it is ‘pathetic’ or ‘chutzpah-tastic.’
NotfooledbyW
Here’s a test of your critical reading ability since you seem to think everyone but you lacks this.
Can you identify in which forum you are posting based on the descriptions below:
A.
For long-running discussions of the great questions of our time. This is also the place for religious debates and (if you feel you must) witnessing.
B.
For rants about the world or beefs with another poster. Comments and complaints about SDMB administration should go in About This Message Board.
Are we in forum A or B?
I hereby predict that NFbW will not be able to answer that question with fewer than ten characters.
The Bush Library Thread is open in A. Go there if you are capable of debating. I will be happy and quite able to oblige.
My facts are facts in both. Your sides’ bs is bs in both.
B is good because I can not only show why this forum’s establishment bs is bs I can call it bs too.
Attention dumbass: nobody wants to debate you. That the whole point of this thread.
Damn your good. What’s the numbers for the next big lotto? I’m in California.
You are a dumb.
No shit. You fuckholes take this retarded shit back to Great Debates and stop shitting up The Pitt. You bunch of cum-guzzling assholes, whose mother needs to slapped for letting you use a computer, can go fuck a cactus.
ETA: eh I misread Ravenmans’ post but still…I totally want a strawberry malt right now.
What you say is a ‘given’ is false. Define how one supports or opposed closed door negotiations between the WH and key members of Congress.
I supported (after the fact) the stated intent of the AUMF to demand that Bush use military force only to enforce all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq. So you are making your claim falsely and dishonestly now, that I am trying to justify it. I am simply stating that it was what it was. And it was not a blank check. If it were a blank check there would have been no explicit tie to All Relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq.
So you now must be counted as having your head up your ass with regard to what is written in the AUMF like so many here have theirs,
The fact that nobody can is not my problem. Facts just will be facts and you do not have them on your side.
This is the single most devastating thing I’ve had said about me since Starving Artist said I was on his list of dishonest posters. Wait, I didn’t mean devastating. What’s that other word? Oh yeah, amusing.
“Sure, I signed the check without filling in an amount, but I wrote ‘Don’t make it more than $200’ on the memo line so it’s totally not a blank check.”
Ah, no thank you. Mostly because I don’t care to read walls of texts consisting of run-on sentences with no commas. This forum is more entertaining.
Sorry, but just noticed these paragraphs*.
Your contention is that the people who correctly predicted that giving Bush a blank check** for going to war was a bad idea are the ones who were “played for fools.” I am impressed at your ability to keep topping yourself, inanity-wise.
*Guess that’s one advantage of the Wall o’ Text approach to posting: easy to hide idiotic stuff amid the thickets.
**Can we just take the “But it wasn’t a blank check, despite looking exactly like one” fit as a given and skip the Wall o’ Text for it?
You are very stupid. The text of the AUMF makes it not a blank check.
The one’s that are played for a fool by Bush are those who believe the Bush lies about Iraq’s naughty behavior and failure at cooperation and Iraq was in violation of 1441 such as this Propaganda duped fool in 2004:
It does no good to repeat Bush supportive lies that Iraq was in violation of 1441 and then turn around and complain that it didn’t justify the invasion - you can’t explain true and proper opposition to the invasion if you accept and repeat the propaganda and lies that were deceitfully used to justify it.
I’m in California, too. I ain’t telling you. 
I made that prediction despite having skipped pages 2-10; I suspect there are others who wished they could say the same.