You cited the exact language alright. You just don’t know how to read a simple English sentence. And it’s interesting that you cannot produce a single cite from anyone of any consequence who agrees with you on your unique (to put it politely) interpretation.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Congress didn’t stutter Mace. I cite the exact language in the AUMF - you stutter and slobber bullcrap that Bush could somehow decide to enforce UNSC Resolutions on his own.
[/QUOTE]
You cited it, as John said, but it’s abundantly (one might say painfully) clear that you can’t read with anything resembling comprehension. That’s the main problem in any discussion with you. It’s all one sided, since you simply are incapable of grasping what anyone writes, including yourself as you seem constantly befuddled when people read what you write and remember it, even cutting and pasting it from earlier discussions.
And I’ve explained, several times now, exactly why I supported it initially and why I became disillusioned rather quickly. It’s militantly unsurprising that you still fail to grasp why I supported it initially and later didn’t, since you can’t read with anything resembling comprehension.
I didn’t CARE if the inspections were working or not (I didn’t think they were, but didn’t really care at the time one way or another). My feeling at the time was that the UN was basically worthless and Saddam was pulling the wool over their eyes, but that WMD was just a pretext anyway. Why this is so hard for you to comprehend when I’ve told you this several times WOULD be a mystery, but you are dumber than dirt and incapable of reading for comprehension. Iraq, to me, was a threat to the OIL in the region, especially since the Iraqis had around a fifth of the worlds oil reserves under their control. Saddam was obviously hostile to the US, had a track record of brutality and obviously an expansionist agenda, and was clearly doing everything he could to wriggle out from under the thumb of those imposing sanctions on him (things such as the food for oil program and his constant testing of the no-fly zone were indications of this to me at the time). WMD was an EXCUSE to finally pull the trigger on this pocket tyrant and sweep him and his corrupt government off the board and put in place a democratically elected government that would be friendly toward the US for helping them get rid of them. Obviously, this was idiot and I was wrong, but I have no problem fessing up that I was stupid at the time and made a mistake giving my support to the initiative (though, I’ll hasten to note here that I never voted for Bush…I voted Libertarian back then).
As for your assertion that I display graphic ignorance on this subject, the irony quotient of this is off the charts. 
You not only exhibit profound ignorance on this subject, you are simply put profoundly ignorant, full stop, being incapable of even the ability to read and comprehend anything at all.
You see now how he hooks you? It’s like seeing the Yellow Sign, your mind is infected and there’s no hope for any of us.
There is no interpretation of the AUMF but the one I point to. It did not state that Bush was being authorized to use force in order to NOT enforce UN Resolutions. And you and XT are quite clear that Bush was NOT enforcing UN Resolutions when he attacked Iraq with bombs and ground troops. So WTF are you trying to say?
Please answer my question on the US Attorney and his duty to enforce all US laws. That question isn’t about Bush, it’s about your use of the English language.
The AUMF explicitly states ‘ALL Relevant’ Resolutions. If I apply that to your US Attorney analogy - the US attorney can decide what is relevant because he is a US attorney has legal jurisdiction over enforcing US/ Federal laws.
The AUMF instructed the President that he could determine to use military force in order to enforce Resolutions that were not under his jurisdiction. Bush cannot reasonably claim that he is enforcing a UN Resolution by using force when that a resolution does not authorize force.
You made that point quite well back in 2003. Do you want me to refresh your memory.
I’m not asking about an analogy. I’m asking about your understanding of the English language. If a US Attorney is supposed to “enforce all US laws,” is it a problem if he indicts a person only for violating one law, but not another law?
Just answer the question.
No problem. Unless it starts a needless war where tens of thousands of innocent people are killed and maimed. Then I quite sure it would be a problem for the survivors that saw many loved ones die and of course for all the maimed and suffered property loss too. That would be a problem. So to me effect and consequences have bearing.
I’m not sure if your problem with the English language relates to the phrase “enforce all laws” or if it relates to “just answer the question…” Because you keep talking about things that have nothing to do with what the question is.
Is there some way that I can rephrase the question to get you to actually offer a substantive response about the question, and not other topics that I am not asking about?
I have no trouble understanding what “all” means in this statement:
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.
I understand what “the president is” and I know what “authorized” means as it applies to this phrase, “to use” US Armed Forces… and I surely understand what “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” … means.
Many of you here appear to have a serious comprehension problem on what the President is authorized to determine versus what he is authorized to do in the AUMF.
The key phrase that you all wish to ignore is “in order to” …
The President is authorized to use force ‘in order to’…
In order to do what?
Defend the national security of the USA “and” “enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq”
The President in not authorized to use military force just because he determines it to be necessary and appropriate because the AUMF tells him there are two restraints on that determination… the second one is not optional… It is to enforce UNSC Resolutions… ALL RELEVANT ones.
That makes 1441 part of ALL if it should come to pass.
Bush stated prior to the vote that he would seek it.
When the AUMF was passed 1441 did not exist. 1441 created a legal obstacle for Bush’s war aims, and the only remedy was to lie. He had to sell the idea that Iraq was not cooperating. That propaganda campaign and that lie worked.
IF you don’t believe me. You should all take a look at yourselves. XT excluded. That stooge is just plain nuts.
There is no way that Bush could have been enforcing 1441. It called for Iraq’s cooperation and there was no deadline. The UNMOVIC Chief called Iraq’s cooperation proactive to have started several weeks prior to the decision by Bush to invade.
These are facts Ravenman. I don’t need an English lesson. You need to acquire a principled respect for facts.
Nice Job Ravenman:
*“Pulling back from the question of resolutions for a moment, the UN Charter holds that member states have an inherent right to self defense, and arguably anticipatory self defense, but only in those situations where the Security Council has not had time to consider the matter. That is clearly not the case here.” -Originally Posted by Ravenman *
So that means Bush should not be able to claim an inherent right to self defense since he just kicked (advised them to leave to avoid being hit by US bombs) a couple hundred UN inspectors out of Iraq after the Chief Inspector had called Iraq’s cooperation proactive.
*“Even more generally, if one accepts the legal (as opposed to moral or practical) legitimacy of the United Nations, it is extremely difficult to see how there can be any other ultimate authority on the meaning and intent of actions by the UN, aside from UN bodies themselves. That a single country can seek to define the meaning, intent, and application of the UN Charter or UN resolutions would contradict the acknowledgement of legal legitimacy.” -Originally Posted by Ravenman *
So according to Ravenman back in 2003 after seeing Bush kick the inspectors out of Iraq, there was not a single valid claim that Bush was ‘enforcing’ any relevant UN Resolutions with regard to Iraq let alone ‘all’ or let alone 1441. Bush was enforcing nothing but Bush’s agenda.
But Congress authorized the use of force according to 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.
This is the Pit. We’re fighting him here so we don’t have to fight him in GD.
So, you are saying that interpretation of “all” depends on whether sometime in the future your actions will result in people belong killed and maimed? And we are supposed to know what that future will be so we know how properly to interpret the word “all” in the present moment exactly how? Please explain how all this works, because it is indeed fascinating.
Oops, I used “all” in that last sentence, so the meaning is going to depend on future actions. Well, you’ll just have to trust me that I won’t be staring any needless wars where tens of thousands of people are killed. Of course the last time you trusted someone about that it didn’t work out so well, did it?
Further,we are indeed left what a conundrum here. On the one hand, we have Ravenman’s well documented cites of high level Congressmen that the AUMF was a “blank check” offered to Bush. On the other hand we have an anonymous poster on this MB who is pushing an entirely different interpretation of the AUMF. An interpretation that none of us has ever heard of, and that flies in the face of our plain reading of the text.
Whatever are we to do to resolve this conundrum!?!?
I know! All we need is for our esteemed colleague to cite just one Congressperson, however lowly his or her position is, who makes the same claim that he does. That should do it, no? Maybe that’s too high a bar to set. How about we expand his reach so that all he has to do is cite even on Junior Assistant Dog Catcher in any municipality of the US who holds a similar view.
Yes, that’ll do it. I think that is the best way for us to work ourselves out of this deeply complex and troubling conundrum.
XT says it had nothing to do with WMD and proof is the history that we all lived through.
This fine American did not live through it XT.
He died.
He was killed in action while defending/guarding the ISG looking for Iraq’s WMD.
You supported Bush using ground troops to disarm Iraq through non-UN sanctioned violence and killing and the massive destructiveness of war. Yes you supported this war going in, but now have the audacity to brag that you later figured out it was not about WMD, or disarmament.
Sgt. Baker would most likely be alive today if Bush had only kept his very plain word that he wanted to disarm Iraq peacefully and if he would have simply heeded Blix’s report that Iraq was cooperating proactively and within a few months the verification of a disarmed Iraq would take place and long term monitoring as called for in UNSC Resolutions would begin.
Bush obviously had millions like you XT supporting the fake the peace seeking Bush ruse and who cares what the inspectors don’t find.
To pay respect to the Baker family and all who have perished in the war of Bush’s choice, I would love to see the truth about Bush’s UNSC related lies become much better known and reviewed - and for pursuit of that truth you call me a fuck monkey.
There is no excuse for what you are.
You do need an English lesson, because you keep posting things that are not actually responses to me. Here is what I asked you, in case you haven’t noticed before:
[Quote=Ravenman]
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?
[/quote]
[Quote=Ravenman]
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?
[/quote]
[Quote=Ravenman]
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?
[/quote]
[Quote=Ravenman]
And please answer my US Attorney question without evasion. It isn’t hard.
[/quote]
[Quote=Ravenman]
Please answer my question on the US Attorney and his duty to enforce all US laws.
[/quote]
[Quote=Ravenman]
If a US Attorney is supposed to “enforce all US laws,” is it a problem if he indicts a person only for violating one law, but not another law?
[/quote]
What is wrong with answering the question I’ve asked you seven times?
He told you. It depends on how many needless wars the Attorney has started. D’uh!!!
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
XT says it had nothing to do with WMD and proof is the history that we all lived through.
This fine American did not live through it XT.
He died.
He was killed in action while defending/guarding the ISG looking for Iraq’s WMD.
[/QUOTE]
You really are a fuck weasel, you know that? And just bone ass stupid. Yes, many people died in that fucked up war, and many died searching around for WMD that didn’t exist. That’s simply proof that Bush et al actually thought there were WMD still in the country, not that it was the real reason for the war you idiot.
It’s heavily ironic that you WERE so fooled by W to think that WMD was the primary reason for the invasion, and that you think that the above proves some point, instead of making you look like a stupid ass wipe.
And you keep harping on this as if it is scoring you points. I’m not bragging, I’m admitting that I was wrong, you idiotic fuck monkey. Something you are completely incapable of doing or even grasping.
And Bush wouldn’t have been able to pull the trigger on that war had Congress not given him a blank check to do so, and had not the majority of the American people supported him, and had not our other allies supported the move. It wouldn’t have happened had Saddam played things straight in the 90’s and done the things he did. It wouldn’t have happened had Gore not fucked up and lost his campaign. It wouldn’t have happened had 9/11 not happened, scaring the crap out of and angering the American people and opening up a window that Bush could exploit. There were myriad factors that all went into the perfect storm that was Iraq.
I didn’t support Bush you idiot. I supported the US’s stance on the war with Iraq. I, as well as just about everyone here EXCEPT YOU WHO ACTUALLY WAS FOOLED BY W pretty much knew that the fake peace thing was fake, and that the decision to invade had been made as soon as we started moving troops into the area. Anyone who didn’t realize by that point that it was going to be war unless Saddam et al surrendered was an idiot who wasn’t paying attention. There was nothing Saddam and the Iraqis could do once we began moving in large concentrations of troops and logistics that was going to appease Bush, not with Congresses blank check in his hands.
You aren’t pursuing truth because you are too fucking stupid to understand either the situation we are discussion or anything that anyone is saying to you. You are a moronic fuck monkey of epic proportions.
That’s a crucial point. Once Bush signed the AUMF on Oct. 16th, he was empowered to make war on Iraq whenever he so chose. He could have invaded the next morning if he’d wished.
International law is a nice idea and all, but in practice, it doesn’t apply to wealthy, powerful nations, and especially not the United States, the world’s only superpower. I’m sure Bush wanted U.N. sanction for the war, but he certainly didn’t need it. There was never any chance the U.N. would bring sanctions against the U.S. and her allies for invading Iraq. The only downside of defying the U.N. was some scolding.
In reality, all Bush had to comply with was domestic law. To do so, all he had to do was provide a letter to the Speaker of the House and pro tempore of the Senate stating that, in his opinion:
He provided that letter, and thus the war was legal under domestic law.
The AUMF was the whole ballgame. The anti-war effort ended in failure on Oct. 16th, 2002.
What was the primary reason for war when you were stupid enough to support the invasion? What is the reason for war now that you think you are not stupid anymore?