What the fuck is your point? Where are the records of you from 10 years ago, so you can come off like the genius you think you are?
Oh, wait. Nobody gives a shit what you posted 10 years ago… or 10 minutes ago. Literally nobody cares about your psychological illness that makes you find this so interesting.
How many hours per day do you spend on this goat rope?
It certainly was legitimate, which is just another way of saying “legal”. Congress gave Bush a blank check.
Justified? I think it’s morally justified to overthrow a brutal dictator who started 2 wars in about 10 years with his neighbors. And Iraq was sort of a special case since once of the reasons SH was no threat is that the US was expending considerable resources to maintain a no-fly zone. We had no moral responsibility to do so indefinitely. That no-fly zone was instrumental in protecting regions of Iraq where SH especially brutalized Iraqis after Golf War i. The situation in Iraq after Gulf War I was certainly comparable to that in Kosovo where, although the US did not invade, we certainly bombe the shit out of Serbia for months.
One can argue that if a nation is going to take the step the US did, that it needs to plan things better than Bush did. The aftermath of that war showed us the consequences of poor planning on Bush’s part.
More importantly, was it wise and was it in the interest of the US? Absolutely not, and I’ve never said otherwise. It was not wise because, unless you were Fooled By W, you knew that SH was no threat to the US.
I don’t think I am a genius. I just post the facts and no one can dispute them.
I have many points. One of which is that I’ve been falsly attacked as “supporting” an AUMF that gave Bush a blank check for war by posters like you who claim this was all debated and decided ten years ago, and come to find out it wasn’t.
So we should find out why the lies about that? That’s one point and there are many more.
You haven’t been falsely accused of that. We’re just reading your words. The fact that you don’t see it as a blank check is more evidence that you were Fooled by W.
Tell me Mace that this is not written into the AUMF:
And since it is written in to the AUMF now you need to tell me how it is you believe Bush was 'enforcing “”“all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq”“”". If you wish to tell me that Bush acted in accordance with the AUMF - I have arguments by Ravenman and Tomndebb from 2003 deflate that argument flat out.
So what is it? Bush was enforcing 1441 when he started a war or was he acting unwisely and illegitimately and unjustified in defiance of 1441 as well as the AUMF itself?
Or will you run away crying blank check blank check blank check blank check as if it means anything at all.
Do you really not know what “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” means? It means he’s The Decider. Period. End of Story.
If you think you;re right,maybe you should devote some of your time to getting impeachment hearings started…
It was not legitimate after Iraq began cooperating proactively with UNMOVIC inspectors in February 2003 whether that was considered immediate cooperation or not. Whether it was legal rests mostly in the eyes of the beholders and I see Mace’s eyes see the same legality and legitimacy of the eyes that support and defend the war.
But you also say it was morally justified after Iraq cooperated with the inspectors and Iraq was not in violation if international law while 1441 was engaged. That is sick.
I don’t have to trump up crap like Blank check and SH did not cooperate to know that the killing of Shams Amin and her family can never be justified. Never!
Sa’la al-Mousai Mansour district, Baghdad 07-April-2003
Alaa-eddin Khazal Mansour district, Baghdad 07-April-2003
Sena Hassad Mansour district, Baghdad 08-April-2003
Rana Hassad Mansour district, Baghdad 08-April-2003
Maria Hassad Mansour district, Baghdad 08-April-2003
Sama Sami Mansour district, Baghdad 08-April-2003
Lana Sami Mansour district, Baghdad 08-April-2003
Miriam Sami Mansour district, Baghdad 08-April-2003
Salma Amin Mansour district, Baghdad 08-April-2003
Mohammed Amin Mansour district, Baghdad 08-April-2003
Said Amin Mansour district, Baghdad 08-April-2003
Shams Amin Mansour district, Baghdad 08-April-2003
The Pentagon reported on 7 April that .A B2 bomber dropped four 2000-pound laser-guided GBU-24 bunker-buster bombs on the Al Saa Restaurant in the al Mansour District of Baghdad that Intelligence sources claimed was a meeting place of Saddam Hussein, his two sons, and senior Iraqi regime leaders.
When the broken body of the 20-year-old woman was brought out – torso first, then the head – her mother started crying uncontrollably, then collapsed.
Mace and his just war bullcrap makes it sound as if he would have signed the Land Letter to Bush. But just say you have to wage just war wisely.
The Land letter was a letter sent to U.S. President George W. Bush by five evangelical Christian leaders on October 3, 2002, outlining their support for a just war pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.
No, I was against the war. I would not have signed such a letter. I was not fooled by W like you were and so I don’t need to rationalize support the AUMF by saying it didn’t say what it clearly said. You have to, but that’s because you supported giving Bush a blank check and thus legitimizing his invasion. I can understand that might give you mental anguish, but you have to let it go. It’s done. Just learn from your mistakes, OK?
If no one can dispute them, why have you failed to convince a single person anywhere that you’re right? Why are nearly all the people arguing with you opposed to the war? Do you ever stop and take stock of why nobody likes you?
The AUMF was never a significant debate point at the time because everyone, on both sides of the debate, recognized that it was just one more tool that Bush was using to invade Iraq.
The discussion at the time centered on whether there was sufficient reason to invade, whether it was a good idea or a bad idea, and whether it would result in a good or bad outcome.
AUMF only became a major debating point when you showed up nine and ten years after the fact, trying to defend the actions of Clinton and Kerry and company in promoting the war by trying to claim that the AUMF was a wonderful piece of legislation that Bush misused. As I noted in an earlier post, possibly in a different thread, Clinton was wholly supportive of the war as late as the week before Bush launched it, repeating Bush’s nonsense about how “dangerous” Hussein was. When you try to claim that Bush misused the AUMF (which I agree he did), and also claim that he did it despite the clear intentions of those Democrats who voted for it, you are clearly making up stuff to rationalize the bad choices of Clinton et alii, defending the indefensible, and making yourself risible in the extreme. When you carry on the same nonsense over hundreds of posts over multiple threads, you just place yourself into a category of silliness that is rarely seen on this board outside fundies and CT enthusiasts.
Do you other two stooges share John Mace’s clearly stated view that invading Iraq was ‘morally justified’ ? Because I don’t and never did.
Do you other two stooges recognize how stupid John Mace’s argument about what
*““as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”” *means. And that idiot finishes his typical idiotic “period. end of story” bull crap.
I do consider T&D and Ravenman to be much more intelligent than John Mace so I wonder if the other two stooges know what *““as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”” *actually means. You see that language of the AUMF is telling the President that he gets to determine what type of military force and how much and to what extent is appropriate and how much is necessary to be used in the event that the use of military force should become required to ““ENFORCE (THAT IS ENFORCE) all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq””.
I would like to know if Mace’s ignorance is shared by T&D and Ravenman. Bush still must be ‘enforcing UNSC Resolutions’ when he determines what level and type of military force would be necessary.
And none of the three stooges have responded in any way explaining that Bush was indeed ‘enforcing all UNSC resolutions’ when he 'determined to use bombing, ground invasion and military occupation to ‘enforce all UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq’ including UNSC 1441. He wasn’t enforcing ‘all UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq’ and I think two of the three stooges are aware of that, but not honest enough to admit. Mace? Who knows?
Tomndebb now writes, “The discussion at the time centered on whether there was sufficient reason to invade, whether it was a good idea or a bad idea, and whether it would result in a good or bad outcome”, but I see that T&D noticed back then the relevance about the political reality that existed leading up to the vote for the AUMF. It was not as simple as is it a ““GOOD IDEA or a BAD IDEA”” because Bush held the dominate position and could more or less do and get what he wanted from the Congress… whether it was before the November mid-term or immediately following it.
This following paragraph is a snapshot of the time prior to the vote that I think our three stooges have deliberately forced out of their minds as to what the world looked like prior to October 2002. And again. Pointing out the reality of the time does not suggest that anyone MYSELF INCLUDED ever believed Bush that his version of reality was true. It was what it was and that is all that is being pointed out here.
There was no discussion about the text and language of the AUMF as it clearly states that BUSH could ONLY be using the military force it was authorizing to ‘enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq.’ Pointing that out by me now ten years later means these three stooges have been living a lie for a decade and that Ravenman is why I can never convince you three stooges to admit what the AUMF actually reads. Nobody wants to admit they have been lying to themselves for over a decade. It destroys the perception of credibility they think they have displayed on this tight pretty close-minded forum for all those years.
It’s like taking a stick to a hornets nest. The stick is reality. The hornets are pissed. It’s not conducive to reason, intellect, or facts in the way the hornets react.
Blah blah blah.
Point out one person who agrees with you. Somewhere on the Internet, one would think that there’s someone with actual expertise and knowledge of foreign affairs that would agree with you.
Find that person.
I’ve pointed this out to him myriad times. He still fails to grasp this ‘you know everyone can just scroll up and see what you actually posted, right moron?’ concept, however. 
Hard to believe this thread is still grinding on. And that folks are still trying to engage him when it’s clear he can’t be engaged, and that he’s dumber than a post and denser than a neutron star.
He was not “enforcing all UNSC resolutions” as you or I saw it. Not as Blix or the UNSC saw it. Not as NATO or even as the US Congress saw it. He enforced them “as he determined to be necessary and appropriate”, which is the authority that the AUMF gave him. There were amendments offered that would have not given him that authority, but they were rejected by Congress.
To whom do you think the AUMF gave the authority to make that decision? How, according to the AUMF, was the decision to use military force (or not to use it) supposed to be made?
You noted that there were very few references to the AUMF between September 2002 and March 2003 and wondered why that was the case.
I provided the answer. EVERYONE knew that it was the fig leaf that was supposed to provide an excuse for an invasion. No one argued the point, then, because it was never an issue. It was never a CAUSE. It was never a RATIONALE. It was just a tool.
Now, a decade later, you want to pretend that that silly fig leaf was some sort of guarantee that the U.S. would only go to war if certain conditions were met when everyone else in the entire world knew that Bush was going to war, regardless.
It is not my problem, (or our problem), that you were so stupid then and so butt hurt, now.
You have repeatedly, (not to say stupidly), claimed that evil forces on the political Right have misinterpreted the vote of various Democrats as being “support” for the war. (In fact, it is pretty much the only reason you waste so much time writing your screeds.)
So, let us see where Senator Clinton or Senator Kerry or any of your other poor, harmed Democrats were speaking out against the invasion on the evening of March 18, 2003. Where are all (any?) of these maligned Democrats leaping up to declare that Bush was violating the text of the AUMF?
Lacking that evidence, everything you say is nothing but histrionic lies to cover your own sorry ass.
Your question was why the AUMF was not debated ON THIS BOARD and I have provided the answer the THAT question.
As to Bush getting his way: you are the one who wants to defend Clinton and others. I noted that Levin, Lee and others had the courage to stand up to Bush’s juggernaut. That means that Clinton either agreed with Bush (as her public statements indicate) and your defense of her is erroneous or she simply rolled over for political expediency and failed to have the courage to join Levin in opposing Bush. Either way, your defense fails.
Tony Sinclair certainly posts a near identical (factual if you cite the actual language) viewpoint of the AUMF:
I have simply added a major point that the language of the AUMF requires Bush to use military force only in order to enforce “ALL” UNSC Resolutions which includes 1441 when it came into being the following month.
Point Two to Ravenman: What does “agreement with me” have to do with your absolute failure to dispute the fact that the AUMF is not a blank check. It is impossible for it to be a blank check. A blank check would be as if it stated, The president is authorized to use force against Iraq for any purpose that he sees fit.
That is not what it says. It says Bush must use his determination if it became necessary *to enforce ALL UNSC relevant Resolutions regarding Iraq *. That is not a blank check by any stretch of the imagination. So again Ravenman, do you stand by a claim that Iraq was in fact ‘enforcing all relevant UNSC Resolutions’ when he determined to take military action against Iraq? Don’t dance and prevaricate your way around it. It is not a very difficult answer and I believe you answered it in a way that backs me, ten years ago, when perhaps you still may have been honest and intelligent about these things.
I responded to that false attack, and have posted that I stand by both my statements if one were to “SCROLL UP” read them in proper context and in full. IF you can’t get back on the playing field XT you ought to go back to where you’ve been hiding since making that nasty pro-Bush attack on me on the Bush Library Thread and then starting this great thread which has let you and all your friends down.
So Mace is the first to admit that Bush was ‘not enforcing all UNSC Resolutions’ as the AUMF only authorized Bush to do. Thank You Mace. One Down two stooges to go. But I forgot about XT, so there’s still three stooges to go.
What is your point? Bush was not ‘enforcing all UNSC Resolutions’ first of all because he was not enforcing 1441.. He pissed on 1441. He pissed all over it. So you are correct in your first statement above. And this changes nothing except it takes up space. Second of all there was absolutely no way that Bush could declare or suggest or pretend that he was enforcing “ALL” UNSC Resolutions unless he had the UNSC authorize the action he was taking. Bush maybe thought and you as the idiot you are believe him, that he was enforcing 1441 and ‘all’ relevant UNSC Resolutions, but that is a bogus flat out pile of crap and the other two stooges absolutely know it.
Other Amendments were not passed. Bush was given authority to use military force to ‘enforce’ all UN Resolutions against Iraq. That is what it says. This argument is against the claim by several stooges here who apparently agree with Bush that the AUMF was ‘open ended’ and he had no obligation to be ‘enforcing’ all UN Resolutions against Iraq as the AUMF clearly stated.
Whether or not to ““enforce all UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq”” was not a decision that Bush on his own could make. The UNSC member majority clearly and unequivocally determined that the UN Inspections were working sufficiently and should be continued. There was to be no military action taken against Iraq to enforce any UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq. Not one iota of military action was ok with the majority of the UNSC. Bush could not even bribe enough members to get it.
France was right. Let the inspections go on for a few more months and all the issues would be resolved as a result of the tough inspections that the threat of Military Force was seen to produce. Would it hurt to say that France was right, Iraq was cooperating under 1441 and GW Bush was a knuckle head and was entirely wrong because he determined that it was necessary to invade Iraq by ***not enforcing ***UN Resolution 1441.
Come stooges… Why cant you explain how Bush was adhering to the AUMF by enforcing all those UNSC resolutions when he attacked Iraq basically on his own.
No, I did not admit that. You are ignoring the second half of my sentence.
My point is that the AUMF gave Bush the sole authority to decide.
Again, you are ignoring who gets to decide. The AUMF gives Bush the sole authority to decide.
Can you quote the part of that AUMF that supports that?
Firstly, you have never shown that the majority of the UNSC members believed that, but it wouldn’t matter if they did. The AUMF does not say that Bush has to defer to them. It gives him the sole authority to decide.
Now, there was recourse if Congress somehow felt Bush was abusing the power granted to him by the AUMF. They could:
Note that Congress never even came close to doing any of those things. Why do you suppose that is?
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
I responded to that false attack, and have posted that I stand by both my statements if one were to “SCROLL UP” read them in proper context and in full. IF you can’t get back on the playing field XT you ought to go back to where you’ve been hiding since making that nasty pro-Bush attack on me on the Bush Library Thread and then starting this great thread which has let you and all your friends down.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not a false attack. You are basically an idiot who has been caught out multiple times when you tried to change your story, despite the fact (plain to everyone but you) that you said something completely different than you later claimed. Hell, I’ve quoted you saying stuff and had you then deny it, you freaking moron. You really don’t seem to realize that everything you say is accessible to anyone who cares enough to scroll up and just look for themselves and read your blather in the context of the conversation.
As for trotting out the ‘nasty pro-Bush attack on’ angle, it’s to laugh. Again, you are a fucking idiot without two brain cells to rub together. Anyone who actually cares (all 2 of them following this thread) can go and look for themselves to see if my attacks were ‘pro-Bush’ in any way, shape or form. They aren’t, and I’m fairly confident that those 2 folks who might care can determine that for themselves since, you know, they CAN actually scroll up and read the discussion. Which, again, you seem unable to grasp. I linked to the Bush library thread in the OP after all.
How did everyone “KNOW” that it was such a fig leaf. Was this a clairvoyant forum back then?
But if you wish to say it was “just a tool” then I am not wrong anyway to state that Bush was going to get a tool to his liking one way or another. So are you saying it does not matter what the language of the ‘tool’ actually states? If so, it appears that you are admitting that the actual language of the AUMF was not discussed, because you all erroneously saw it as an excuse for the invasion and not as direction for Bush to only use force if it became necessary to enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq.
So when someone like me comes along and points out the actual language in the AUMF does in fact restrain Bush in a way that was not understood ten years ago by this forum’s know-it-alls. It appears to me that what you are defending is some sort of Flat Earth Society with regard to Iraq.
Nope. Not true. You are making stuff up again. I never suggested that the AUMF would guarantee that Bush would not pervert it. I am pointing out the FACT that Bush went astray of the language in the AUMF that said certain conditions were to be set. That is one of my key points. You semi-conscious Bush defenders cry foul about the AUMF while refusing to consider that Bush is the one that went afoul of it. And then to accumulate more errors into your thinking, you insist that the regime in Iraq did not cooperate under 1441 so that Bush has so much support when he says he had no choice to defy the UNSC and 1441, Saddam Hussein did not ***let the inspectors in *** - the typical Bush line that Iraq did not cooperate as he should have.