If a US Attorney is required or restrained to enforce a specific law and he or she chooses to piss all over that law and do exactly the opposite of what that law required him to do, then the US Attorney is not in error for not enforcing all the laws, he is in error for being in contempt for the law as written.
Bush showed no respect for the restraint that exists in the AUMF when he decided to do the complete opposite of how the UNSC determined to enforce it’s Resolutions with regard to Iraq.
You have not presented a US Attorney scenario that comes close to what Bush defiantly did.
Well, I AM a degenerate hedonist, to be honest. But my shoes don’t stink…much. Plus, you have halitosis! And your mom dresses you funny. Finally, you use big words like’ cryptofascist’ and ‘old’, which to me clearly shows you are an ivory tower Hugoian Socialist, which is much worse than being a cryptofascist with stinky feet!
But yeah…for now, we can stand shoulder to (well, we could but I’m probably a lot shorter than you are) against this ass-clown.
That is a false assumption on your part. I don’t think that at all. I’m certain that you all are professing various versions of the same flawed, erroneous, indefensible argument that the AUMF was a blank check for Bush to start a war. And you all compound that flawed argument by all declaring as Bush does that Iraq did not cooperate under the UNSC enforcement of 1441.
What you all have in common is your fiat earth society type denial of the facts of Iraq’s cooperation and and your constant denial that Bush did not operate contrary to the restraint applied to any use of force that was plainly written into the AUMF.
Good gods you are stupid. You really, truly are. Ok, let’s pretend for a moment that you are right and the AUMF said what you fancifully think it said. So, why didn’t anyone say or do anything about Bush trampling on it then? Why did congress make no move or raise even a peep to protest what he was doing? Why didn’t the folks who signed it say or do anything as Bush ramped up our army and invaded Iraq? They knew about it. They were given the reports that our troops were building up and they knew before the rest of us did that Bush was pulling the trigger on the war. Yet, there wasn’t so much as a peep of protest that Bush was violating the supposed constraints in the AUMF that you think were in there. Why? Don’t give me a bunch of horseshit about your interpretation of the AUMF…it’s clear you are stupid and also that you are trying will all your effort from admitting you are a clueless get who didn’t understand at the time nor today the first thing about this subject. Just answer the question of why no one did or said anything either at the time or since about Bush violating the constraints you think were in there. Please, try and be concise and don’t rant on with a big wall of text…just answer the fucking question or shut the fuck up and slink off to whatever fucking hole you crawled out of you fucking moron.
It’s clear that your definition of words and simple phrases undergoes some kind of Jekyll and Hyde transformation if the word “Bush” is involved. That’s why I said that my English test isn’t about Bush, it’s about English.
I laid out the scenario clearly. The US Attorney is supposed to enforce all Federal laws. He seeks to indict Al Capone for tax evasion, but not for murder and racketeering (which he’s probably done) or illegal wildlife poaching (which he probably hasn’t done). Since the Attorney is supposed to enforce “all” laws, has he erred in his duty by not charging Al Capone with violating each individual Federal law? A clear answer would help this time.
The UNSC members are on record denying UNSC authority for the use of military force to enforce UNSC Resolutions as defined under the driving resolution known as 1441.
So, Ok Mace, or anyone else, tell me how Bush could have been enforcing one single period in 1441 when he decided to make war but the UNSC members were calling to make peace.
And the Senate is on record as voting against the Levin amendment, which would have specifically required the UNSC to authorize the use of force in order for the AUMFAI to be a valid authorization under US domestic law.
In other words, 75 members of the Senate specifically voted to authorize the AUMFAI even if the UNSC did not authorize the use of force.
And please answer my US Attorney question without evasion. It isn’t hard.
Oh, and I almost forgot about this. Dick Durbin offered an amendment that said that the President could only use the AUMF insofar as it related to the “threat” of WMD, but not if the use of force was related to other, vague references to the “continuing threat” posed by Iraq. That, too, was voted down, 70-30.
How do we know Al Capone wasn’t killing fish eggs? Were the fish egg inspectors given full and timely cooperation to do their jobs without any subterfuge by Capone? Oh! Won’t somebody please think of the fry?
Who called it a blank check and why did they ignore the statement about enforcing UN Resolutions?
That does not indicate it was a blank check. It indicates that Bush ignored a most crucial provision and requirement of the AUMF. Your false interpretation is favorable to improving Bush’s Iraq invasion legacy. You need to stop it, unless you wish Bush a rapid improved legacy on this particular war.
Who is making up a violation? I will paraphrase it again as long as it takes to stop the lying about it:
““The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to … (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.””
If Bush did not violate this then you will have to tell me that Bush was ‘in fact’ “”“”“ENFORCING”“”“” all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq when he ceased US participation in UN Res 1441 was in effect when Bush decided to attack the people of Iraq.
I have not argued in favor of finding Bush in some kind of legal predicament. I am arguing with YOU Ravenman and your fellow stooges who claim without a basis in the written language of the AUMF that it was a blank check for war. The AUMF authorized force tied to enforcing UN Resolutions and that was a restraint on Bush. Bush ignored it and so the restraint did not work. But it is a lie to throw it on Congress as their fault that Bush did not comply with the written language of the authorization. Now if a legal remedy were available that needed a political boost from a strong public outcry by people who found out that Bush defied the law as written, then I would certainly join in that. But the public outcry would have to begin with a vast number of Americans being informed of the fact. And look at what you stooges are doing. You smash any effort to get the public informed of the fact. You blindly and falsely obliged Bush’s claim that all he did was legit and by the book, but Bush is lying when he says it.
No that is a dimwitted take on what I’ve been saying. Saddam was complying with inspections in March 2003 because the Chief Weapons inspector reported that Iraq had cooperated on access from the beginning and began to cooperate on substance (Proactive Cooperation) at some point in February. Iraq was cooperating because Blix and El Baradai said Iraq was cooperating. That’s quite simple too.
I don’t think Iraq was complying because the UNSC never voted to the contrary. That is the position of the stooges on this board that the UNSC needed to vote.
So to recap. I am not interested in a Congressional Vote to tell me what I can read is clear that Bush did not follow the AUMF. And there was no need for a vote at the UNSC to recognize the FACT that Iraq was cooperating and war was not necessary.
I don’t know what your big problem is with that, except it takes away your claim to fame that you were right and most everybody else was wrong.
I have explained much of this earlier:
I didn’t. And you show how dishonest you will be to defend the fraudulent viewpoint you have adopted and nurtured for a decade.
Anybody who really understands Bush’s determination to do bad things would know for a fact and in reality, that Bush had Iraq in violation of international law in September 2002. Bush also had plenty of majority support for doing some ‘bad things about it’.
You are a fool to believe that the AUMF handed Bush any more power than he already had in hand. The AUMF vote was largely a political ploy pushed by Republicans right before the mid-terms. They were trying to take advantage of Bush’s popularity.
In September 2002 Bush knew he had the public and the House and the slimly Dem controlled Senate in the bag to do whatever the hell he wanted against Iraq.
In February 2003 Bush may have realized he screwed up when it was apparent that it was getting close to 100 percent certain that Iraq could be inspected and verified disarmed peacefully with just a few more months operating under 1441.
But luckily for Bush, his microphone was strong enough to keep enough people believing that the evil-doer Saddam Hussein was defiant and cooperative. Hell it looks like Bush convinced the many stooges here that Iraq was not cooperating.
I never ‘pretended’ any such thing. I also do not pretend that Bush united with Cheney prior September carried much certainty that they could escalate the war at whatever rate they saw fit, with or without a specific Iraq AUMF in October.
You are pretending that Bush and Blair were not already bombing the shit out of Iraq during the summer of 2002 and going right up to the September flip-flop form the sabre rattling and the ‘peace-y talk’ and "through the UN’ talk had begun.
Maybe you think dropping bombs on a country is not an act of war already. And you might be thinking that Bush just wanted an AUMF so he could turn the NFZ war into a ground invasion, but without an AUMF prior to November 2002 Bush was going to give up the ground invasion. That is not a very solid conclusion is it? I think Bush was confident that he could get a direct blank check for war if he did not want or need Blair and did not give Hussein and the UNSC to give the peaceful way to disarmament on final opportunity.
I have come to believe that Bush Primarily sought the AUMF/UN PEACEFUL DISARMAMENT route because he wanted Blair to invade Iraq with him. Blair could not deliver unless Iraq refused to let inspectors in after given one final opportunity to comply.
What evidence were you able to recognize as bullshit prior to the vote?
You didn’t think he was a threat. But a large majority considered Saddam Hussein enough of a threat that confronting the first and easiest of the axis of evil dictators in a post-911 world had sufficient public support and in Congress such that Bush could be cocky and bold about taking Saddam out just on the idea of doing it.
I don’t think that was right, but I do accept that as the reality. You are in denial of that reality.
Dooood dooo dood do Doooo dooo dood do… Conspiracy theory alert!
But what is your point and why should we ignore the fact that Bush did not comply with the AUMF that he got?
And I think UN Resolution 1441 was not a ‘tool’ the neocons wanted at all. You need to re-think that one. Gaffney is a neocon.
So you recognized the war was not justified but was going to happen.
I recognized when I heard Rumsfeld and other neocon types say prior to the vote for the AUMF that there were ONLY TWO options on what to do about Iraq. Option ONE: War! Option TWO: Do Nothing! I recognized that war was not justified but I also recognized that the Republican leadership was not only dishonest but they were boldly and outwardly irrational. Unlike the stooges here, I recognized that there was a third choice which was a rational choice and potentially the only choice that could stop irrational men like Rumsfeld Bush and Cheney from doing what they said they were going to do - because doing nothing was not an option to them.
The third choice of course was to give peaceful disarmament a chance by forcing Saddam Hussein into a last chance of complying with the UNSC resolutions that were filed against him.
You are incoherent. What are my own (Bush Created) views? Is it your position that Bush did not violate his word? Such as Bush’s claim that he needed the authorization to use force as a way to keep the peace. Bush basically sent the message that the US Congress must show unity that force would be used if Iraq did not allow the inspectors back in and be disarmed peacefully. That word. You don’t think Bush went back on that word.
I did not believe a word of that Bush propaganda machine and I have shown you the polls that show that the Bush Propaganda machine had little effect. Over two thirds of Americans believed Iraq was a threat prior to the Bush propaganda roll-out.
I have told you that I understand the reality of what happens when a big majority agreed with Bush that Iraq was a threat and something must be done.
I pointed out the fallacy that Iraq was not an ‘immediate’ threat needing confrontation on September 10, 2001 but Iraq suddenly became an immediate threat on September 12 2001 that required such hasty confrontation.
The only difference between you and I T&D is that I was not blind to the reality that unless a third way could be found, Bush and Cheney were going to get their war no matter what.
And I do not ignore Bush for lying after he got the AUMF and you and your fellow stooges do.
That is our difference. You are stuck on AUMF vote and can’t pry your narrow-minded grasp of things off of that vote.
No you simply distort reality away from the fact that the AUMF required Bush do a very important thing in conjunction with deciding that using military *Ground INVASION force against Iraq - and that was he must only do it as part of 'enforcing all relevant UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq.
I was on it. Every word. I wrote letters to editors, Congress, Bush, objection to the irrational push for war. You just don’t allow any justifiability for some who also heard and considered the third way out. (through the UN to disarm Iraq peacefully) Your mind shut down for some reason. In a way you were gravely suckered by the Rumsfeld limited choice. Do Nothing… or Do War.
I think because of the limited availability of ‘WMD evidence and Terrorist Ties’ out into the public arena prior to the AUMF vote, that you are reminiscing a greater amount of knowledge about the flawed case for war than what you really had at the time.
I think most of it came out after the inspections started when we who paid attention could know that Bush was lying about the WMD threat. I did know that Iraq was cooperating more than enough that war should never have been considered. That is something that apparently cannot enter your mind no matter what the ‘evidence’ tells you.
But still, Bush held a stacked deck after the 9/11 attacks and the perceived success in Afghanistan, when the ‘war president’ declared the Taliban was eliminated. You are absolutely nuts to suggest that Senator Clinton and Senator Kerry did not look behind the curtain. They looked. They saw something that you didn’t. Nobody knows who you and the bulk of the minority you have bound yourself to. But what good does your narrow and limited view - that essentially refuses put more emphasis on Bush defying the AUMF language and pissing on the UNSC road to peaceful disarmament - that that that AUMF helped to pave.
I have shown you that you are wrong about that because Iraq was threat to most with or without the Bush propaganda. But you also ignore that after the AUMF and after Res 1441 and month of inspections … that a large majority wanted what Bush said he would do… allow the UN to disarm Iraq peacefully.
If you had joined that majority instead of crying in your cold oatmeal about the AUMF then enough anger may have been aroused to confront Bush for that bold rotten lie to all of us.
If you knew so much about it as you say, why were you not outraged that Bush lied to you when he said war would be only his last resort.
Are you coming out of your AUMF stupor going from ‘blank check’ to ‘tissue thin dress of convenience’ ? There may be active brain cells in there somewhere yet to be activated. Hope springs eternal.
Bush was making a case for his Iraq invasion game through August 2002 when he was actively engaging in stepped up war on his own as ‘war president’ in the ‘war on terror’ along with Tony Blair. Bombing Iraq is war T&D. Try to figure that out.
Why don’t you just drive over to the Bush Library and see if they have an exhibit where you can walk in - eyes wide open - and with lips puckered - you can kiss GW BUSH right on the ass. I will ‘blame’ the failure to comply with the language on the AUMF on Bush forever and without regret. I regret that you let Bush off on that one. My God. What is wrong with you?
So, a sizeable majority saw the same thing differently. The AUMF the voted for produced the results they hoped would come in. Bush pissed on it. You blame Congress. I blame Bush for not following their direction. And you think you are a saint. Dream on.
It is when you fabricate it as ‘bad legislation’ when it has been pointed out to you that it was Bush that made it bad by ignoring what it said. You cannot deny that Bush ignored the language. All you have written you did not even once attempt to deny that Bush went around the authority he was given.
More of your fantasy world and your hyper-developed imagination about what I think, know and do. I have never felt the need to ‘defend’ Senator Clinton or Kerry from the likes of the narrow-minded lefties, moderates or whatever you might be.
Senator Clinton may have lost a primary for President because she voted her convictions in October 2002. Kerry damn near beat Bush after his vote in October 2002. Both will have served as an able Secretary of State, and neither one of these fine Senators to their credit have apologized for their October 2002 vote. They did not do what that scuzz-ball John Edwards did - when he apologized for his vote.
Edwards should have said what HRC said on MTP to Russert … paraphrasing … Bush lied to her… and it was right before the vote. You fault Clinton for being lied to and fail to discredit the liar for that specific lie. That is such an interesting concept to behold.
The biggest fool on this forum and in America is one who would put in writing that it was **clear to him **that because S.H. did his best to ‘violate the …disarmament plan’ and therefore **the US ‘was justified in invading’ **
After I saw Iraq cooperating with inspectors it was clear to me that George W Bush had absolutely no justification in any way imaginable that anyone could look at it for invading Iraq. Yet there was Mace. It was clear to him that invading Iraq was justified.
Now who was truly fooled by Dubya?. Dubya said Iraq did not cooperate. He has gone so far to say that Iraq did not let the inspectors in.
John Mace obviously believed Bush rather than his own droopy closed eyes.. that Iraq did not cooperate proactively as Dr. Blix said he did. Mace believed Bush not Blix. You can’t get more pro-Bush than that after the fact that the inspections were working better than ever in the long history of the UNSC inspections of Iraq.
Perhaps its true as Blix also said, the ‘threat of force’ was the pressure that made Iraq finally cooperate. I accept that as a reality too.
Where is there any evidence that Hussein was a threat to anyone in the fall of 2002 and where do you pretend to have provided that evidence?
He was no longer a threat.
There was no evidence of any such non-existent threat.
You are simply making up stuff to rationalize your really silly feelings.
You have never provided a reason why we should believe your nonsense.
This is the sort of lie over which you constantly trip.
For example, you are still claiming that Clinton had “looked behind the curtain” and seen evidence of “something,” yet your very first posts on this topic, months ago, were in support of her vote for the AUMF. That claim might make sense if she was trying to put the brakes on Bush in March 2003, but she was out there pushing for his unjustifiable war right up until the moment he launched it. You simply say whatever makes you feel good at the moment without even trying to be coherent or consistent.
I’m not sure which curtain Clinton was looking behind, because it’s been well established that she did not read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD programs before voting to authorize war.
It is unsurprising to see one of the four stooges cite my statement, misread it, totally miss what I wrote, and then call it typical of the sort of lying that T&D thinks I do.
My point has always been that regardless of one’s own view of Iraq being a threat prior to the AUMF vote, there was a verifiable perception of the majority of citizenry and lawmakers that Iraq was indeed a threat, and that Bush’s hype and propaganda did not create that majority opinion or affect it much.
T&D won’t let that reality into his mind, because it wipes out all the reasoning behind his obsession with the AUMF vote.
Senator Byrd said the resolution was a “blank check” and that Congress had given up its war powers.
Senator Leahy said, “This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long.”
Congresswoman Barbara Lee said, “The President is asking Congress to give him a blank check . And I say today Mr. President, that your account, has come back overdrawn.”
On the other side, it’s people like Joe Lieberman who argued that the resolution wasn’t a blank check. Think about the company that you’re keeping on this debate: you and pro-war Joe Lieberman, the lonely bunch arguing that the 2002 vote wasn’t a blank check.
And if the intent of the AUMFAI was to tie the United States to specifically carrying out the will of the UNSC, why did the Senate overwhelmingly reject the Levin amendment that would have done just that? The only answer is that the pro-war people who were voting for the resolution didn’t actually want the resolution to be tied to what the UNSC may (or may not) authorize.
There’s no other reasonable explanation. The language you keep citing is a fig leaf that means nothing since the President gets to interpret it any way he wants, and that the Levin effort to rein in that sweeping authority was soundly rejected by pro-war senators.
And there were also a lot of people who thought that Iraq planned 9/11. Are you going to defend that, too?
Jesus, you are a moron. “Lots of people believed BS, we should respect their views!”
Nonsense. It’s the duty of people to dispel bullshit, not use it to cover one’s ass for supporting a blank check for war.
Why must you twist what I write into something you think you can work against. I have not defended the majority perception in 2001 and 2002 that Iraq was a threat. It was what it was. I am pointing out that you and your fellow AUMF obsessed stooges held a minority view that was helpless and floundering in a political battle against a president who used that majority viewpoint to get what he wanted from Congress.
When Bush realized he had a firm majority in Congress that considered Iraq to be a threat he had nothing to lose to push for an AUMF vote prior to the mid-terms. On one hand Bush could have ceased the UN peaceful disarmament talk and continued to escalate the bombing war on Iraq as he had been doing. On the other hand he could have held off on a vote until after the mid/term election was settled.
No matter what, Bush was always in the driver’s seat because the reality was most Americans believed Iraq to be a threat.
