No, we just weren’t Fooled by W like you were.
Nope. We are just all smarter than you were then and much smarter than you are now.
And where is the citation for Clinton, Kerry, and others standing up and demanding that Bush adhere to the letter of the law?
We did not discuss the AUMF because we were not so stupid as to think that having been handed a tool to go make a war, Bush would not use it. You claimed to have supported the AUMF because Hussein was a threat. That is a stupid and unsupportable position. Live with it.
All you have pointed out is that you fail to understand anything that happened then or now. Bush was given the authority to decide what he wanted to see. It is right there in the document that you so love. It does not say that the president is authorized as soon as some collection of congresscritters agree with him, only that he is authorized when he is satisfied that the winds of war are blowing in his favor.
Clinton embraced his decision, so even if your weird views of the AUMF were (against all reality), accurate, the prime subject of your “defense” actually disagrees with your defense: she agreed with Bush.
No. That is not what I have claimed. I expect that you are referring to my point that when I criticize Bush’s decision to force the UN inspectors to leave Iraq and start a war, the first response from Bush defenders is **“Bbbbuuuuttttt Bbbbutttttt Democrats ‘VOTED FOR WAR’” ** which is not true since the AUMF actually required Bush to not start a war unless he was ‘enforcing’ all UN Resolutions regarding Iraq. And forcing the UN inspectors to leave in order to bomb and invade Iraq without UNSC authorization was NOT ‘enforcing’ all UN Resolutions regarding Iraq. It just isn’t.
Its not “evil forces on the political right misinterpreting the vote of various Democrats as being “support” for the war” - it is the political right and some on the political left and center misinterpreting the language of the AUMF to be an automatic VOTE FOR WAR - which it wasn’t. It was a VOTE TO USE MILITARY FORCE TO ENFORCE ALL UNSC RESOLUTIONS regarding Iraq with mentioned support for Bush to continue pursuing the diplomatic means that would in fact produce the UNSC Resolution 1441 that Bush was supposed to support. That was not a VOTE FOR WAR.
I am not making a case that Democrats were harmed. As for Dems speaking out on March 18, it was still Bush was ‘violating the text of the AUMF’ and not enforcing 1441 as he was required to do. It does not justify living a lie that the text of the AUMF does not say what it says.
Bush did make a claim that he had certain intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from UNMOVIC in March 2003. That may have influenced some early silence on Kerry and Clinton’s part… but neither Senator were pacifistic Dems like Rep Kucinich etc and they both had a record of hawkishness on Iraq.
And to their credit they never apologized to the Kucinich anti-war left for their vote. Clinton explained that Bush lied to her on Meet the Press during the Obama era primary. She became Secretary of State under Obama and may run for President again. Kerry came about 90,000 votes in Ohio from defeating Bush in 2004. Kerry was not ‘harmed’ by his vote to authorize Bush to use force to enforce UNSC Resolutions. Most people don’t care about that. They know who the culprit and liar was. That is another point for around here. So many don’t know who the real culprit and liar is because they have not read or tried to understand what the Iraq AUMF actually says.
Clinton did agree with Bush that getting a new UNSC Resolution that forced Iraq into unfettered inspections was a better choice than war. I do not have to defend HRC’s vote. She has done fine on her own. She can’t help it so many on the left are still pouting over the vote and don’t appear to give a rats ass that Bush did not do what he was supposed to do with it.
That is not true. I did not ignore the second half of your sentence as seen in the record as re-posted above. I am not disputing that the AUMF gave Bush the sole authority to decide how and when and in what way to 'ENFORCE all relevant UNSC RESOLUTIONS regarding Iraq. You just have no point John Mace. Bush tried to get UNSC authority to inflict US military might upon the people of Iraq, but they would not give it to him. So he went attacking Iraq entirely outside of any interpretation of ‘enforcing UN Resolutions’.
That is the AUMF as written gave Bush the sole authority to ‘enforce all UNSC Resolution regarding Iraq’ which would have included 1441 had Bush adhered to the AUMF. You are wrong with the second half of your sentence.
It surely does give Bush the sole authority to decide to enforce UNSC Resolutions when the UNSC decided that military force needed to be applied to bring Iraq into compliance. Trouble is John Mace, the UNSC did not ever decide to use military forces against Iraq.
I am not quoting the AUMF, I am stating a fact that Bush could not decide to enforce all UNSC Resolutions by the use of military force unless the UNSC determined that it was necessary to use military force against Iraq. Bush does not preside over the UNSC and cannot make decisions for it. That would not be language in the AUMF because it is so stupid that any concept that Bush gets to make decisions for the UNSC is clearly and absolutely absurd. Nice try though Mace at a diversion.
To the first sentence, just ask Ravenman and T&D if you don’t believe me.
To the second sentence, I am pointing out that Bush was required to convince the UNSC to authorize the use of Military Force if the diplomatic means was not on the way to disarming Iraq. Bush failed.
Of course if the UNSC failed to pass something like UNSC Res 1441 then of course Bush was not requited to defer to the UNSC at all. Bush could have ‘enforced all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq’ without UNSC authorization because 1441 would not be included in the “ALL”.
That is how it works.
Congress was controlled in both the Senate and House when Bush started the invasion. Of course they wouldn’t do that. That does not mean that Bush followed the AUMF and actually was enforcing UNSC resolutions when he invaded Iraq after pissing all over the AUMF and the UNSC Res 1441.
You have admitted that Bush was not enforcing all UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq when he ordered the US Military to bomb and invade Iraq in March 2003.
That is not a fact. That is your opinion. And it sure looks like you’re wrong, because Bush most certainly did exactly that.
The US does not need a permission slip from the UNSC to invade another country or to launch an attack. We do it all the time w/o permission.
Required by whom? Not Congress. Not the US constitution. No president of the US is going to give up that authority. Not Bush, not Clinton, not Obama.
Did Clinton get UNSC approval to bomb the shit out of Serbia? No. Did Obama get UNSC permission to bomb the shit out of Libya? No. They didn’t even get permission from the US Congress to do that!
Nonsense.
Only in your mind. And not that it wasn’t how it worked.
Why didn’t they do anything in 2006 when the Democrats won control of both houses of Congress?
I don’t have to admit shit. You can prattle on as much as you like about 1441, but Bush was authorized by Congress to use force against Iraq if he determined it was necessary. He did exactly that.
You are stupid to decide what the AUMF was without bothering to know what language was actually contained within it.
So it is quite obvious that you defer your ignorance of the language of the AUMF when you still say after I have shown you what the language is, to claim that Bush ‘used it’.
Bush did not use it. Bush invaded Iraq outside of the UNSC Resolutions that he was supposed to be ‘enforcing’.
Your sympathy for Bush is quite Amazing. You think he ***used ***the authority that was given him by the AUMF. Bush created his own authority outside what the UNSC determined and therefore because of that Bush went outside or what the AUMF authorized him to do. You still cannot read.
No. I have explained it before. I supported the AUMF after the fact but prior to the invasion when I saw that at the time of the vote Hussein was in violation of international law and it was a valid argument being made and perhaps abused by Bush. But it was a fact that was verified to be of a critical importance by the UNSC’s unanimous vote in favor of 1441 to confront Iraq on its violation of international law.
I supported it after the fact because I could see that Bush had in fact began to put forth a different face that he had begun to favor giving Iraq a final opportunity to comply and thus avoid war. That is not believing Bush at all. It was to accept a reality that was present and publically known. So I supported what was clearly inevitable anyway because it had become time to start holding Bush to his word… IF… and only … IF Iraq and the UNSC actually could put together a good round of productive inspections. And that they did.
When you quit misrepresenting my argument to suit your single minded obsession that the AUMF was nothing but a fig leaf, then we could come to some agreement.
I have no way of controlling this kind of conduct however.
I can only present the facts. And that is what I am doing.
The AUMF clearly states that Bush was requited to use military force to ‘enforce all UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq’ and you have not been able to deny that fact, or distort it into meaning something that it simply cannot mean.
Mace is there. Bush was not enforcing all UNSC relevant resolutions regarding Iraq.
It is an easy thing to admit.. because it is true.
Actually, you are the one who has invented claims for the AUMF while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the text in the document that handed Bush his blank check.
Your failure to understand the actual text is duly noted.
I have no sympathy for Bush and this claim demonstrates that you live in a fantasy world.
No. I recognize that he used the fig leaf that Clinton handed him to start the war he was going to start, regardless.
He was never a threat in 2002 ore 2003. That you supported Bush by supporting the AUMF simply demonstrates how badly he fooled you.
So, you admit he fooled you. He never fooled me. I actually took the time to read the stuff published about Wolfowitz’s term paper and the rest of the PNAC tripe.
So, you believe that if rape is inevitable, one should relax and enjoy it?
I would be terified to think that I would ever be so stupid as to agree with your twisting and dodging and excuse making.
bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
What’s the over-under on when NFBW gets a special rule limiting him/her to no more than 500 words per post? He/she’s killing the hamsters as we speak.
I’m just astounded by the fact that, on this incredibly anti-Bush MB, Fooled by W can’t even convince 1 person that his interpretation of the AUMF is correct. Not even 1 person! And he’s completely imperious to the idea that maybe, just maybe, he’s wrong. It’s comically sad, really.
Is anyone else starting to worry about NFbW’s ability to get along in the real world?
I can’t imagine how anyone who professes to believe that
[QUOTE=The actual AUMF]
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.
[/QUOTE]
is functionally equivalent to
[QUOTE=A hypothetical non-blank-check AUMF]
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States if the United Nations Security Council rules Iraq to be in violation of resolutions [insert appropriate numbers here].
[/QUOTE]
is going to be able to handle any sort of legal contract.
Legal contract? How about buying a gallon of milk?
One of the stooges has broken rank. John Mace has admitted that Bush was not enforcing all relevant UN Resolutions regarding Iraq. The AUMF clearly states this:
““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.””
If Bush was not enforcing 1441 when he bombed and invaded Iraq in March 2003, Bush was not enforcing all resolutions regarding Iraq. He was doing the exact opposite of what the AUMF authorized him to do.
It is simple plain language that I have not inserted or made up or changed. If Bush had in fact complied with the AUMF he would have had to respect the UNSC’s passage and enforcement of 1441 without war.
You cannot admit it was not a blank check because you will all be admitting what fools you all have been for a decade.
People just don’t easily admit they are fools specifically when they present themselves as know-it-alls and self-righteous we-was-righters.
Al Gore wants me to ask you guys to stop filling up his internet with this nonsense.
Seriously, I have no idea what’s going here, but there are a lot of words. I mean, like, a bunch.
“So, you believe that if rape is inevitable, one should relax and enjoy it?” -T&D.
So now you must compare the enforcement of international law to being raped.
One thing people like is when you tell them they must do something.
Attention, attention: my point here has nothing to do with Bush, it has to do with your command of the English language.
Let’s say the various U.S. Attorneys are directed to “enforce all Federal laws.” When it comes time to indict Al Capone, the defense counsel finds that Mr. Capone is only charged with tax evasion. He hasn’t been charged with 18 USC 41, which provides for criminal penalties for killing fish eggs in contravention of posted regulations. Defense counsel files an ethical complaint against the U.S. Attorney, in that he is directed to “enforce all Federal laws”, but he obviously isn’t, because Mr. Capone isn’t charged with violating this wildlife protection act. In fact, there’s tons of laws that Mr. Capone isn’t charged with violating, and many of them he probably violated, such as murder and racketeering. However, he’s only charged with tax evasion.
Has the U.S. Attorney violated his charge to enforce “all Federal laws” because there is at least one law that has been identified that Mr. Capone is not being indicted for?
Look, you lying sack of shit-- You made that up based on a clipped reading of my post. I did not admit that, so you can kindly go fuck a cactus. And the reason I didn’t admit it is because it’s false.
Damned fool analogy.
The AUMF directs Bush to enforce a third party’s resolutions. The USA is a member state of that third party organization, however the USA does not control the outcome of its resolutions.
I said this isn’t about Bush, this is about your understanding of the English language.
If a U.S. Attorney is responsible for enforcement of “all” U.S. laws, has he made an error by prosecuting someone for breaking only one law, as opposed to “all” U.S. laws?
The irony here is that this fool(ed by W idiot) thinks we are all in lock step and in agreement about all of this stuff. He doesn’t realize that most of us argue quite strenuously against each other on nearly any subject, and it’s only his own idiotic rantings that have brought us together on this one vertical subject. And even there I’d guess there is quite a bit of difference and disagreement over the details if we were to really dig.
NFBW…uniting the SDMB since Feb. 2013! 
Yeah, like I normally think you’re an degenerate hedonist who is leading this country to its demise, your shoes stink up the room, I’m pretty sure you’re a cryptofascist, and you are rude to children and old people. Plus your hair looks funny.
But for now, you’re aces in my book.