And he may have meant it sincerely, he may not have been playing at anything. I’m not convinced, as some others are, that Bush was dead-set on war well before September, though there is some evidence of that, and some of it is pretty strong, I admit.
The thought process may have gone something like this:
Iraq must be disarmed of their WMDs, they are dangerous and defying international law.
The inspections found no WMDs of note.
Therefore, Iraq is hiding them.
Therefore, only a war will remove the threat of a WMD-armed Hussein.
Obviously, #3 is where the thought process goes off the rails. The combination of the exceptionally difficulty of proving a negative, confirmation bias, distrust of the U.N. and faith in CIA intel, existing distrust of and contempt for Hussein, and a few minor examples of non-cooperation would have formed a potent cocktail: belief that Iraq was concealing weapons from the inspectors.
I don’t follow you here, could you rephrase?
As I wrote before, if Bush vetoes the Levin Amendment, that’s fine! Let him feel the heat of the Iraq-is-a-threat fire that he himself stoked, when the American people, who wanted cooperation with the U.N., see him refuse to pursue U.N. inspections despite Congress giving him a war authorization, just one with a reasonable limit. One can only image what the New York Times would have to say about a veto.
And if the UNSC fails to act, then Congress can pass a new, broader, authorization, once there is cause to do so. By jumping straight to the if-all-else-fails option of vesting the war power in Bush, Congress allowed Bush to also jump straight to the if-all-else-fails option of war.
I didn’t say anything about the American public. I said the press.
Linking war to an UNSC resolution; now there’s a thought! If only Congress had that option…:smack:
The best choice Congress could have made was passing the Levin Amendment. I don’t know how you think “a real AUMF for war with an all Republican pro-war Congress” would have differed from the AUMF that was passed, which empowered Bush to use military force in Iraq if he determined it was necessary. There’s not much I can imagine that’s broader than that; maybe the “real AUMF for war” would have also given Bush the honorary title of “Grand War Hero” or something.
If you think the AUMF constrained Bush in any way, you are selling yourself a lie to avoid criticizing Democrats other than Lieberman, your sacrificial lamb. Here’s my proof: the plain text of the AUMF, and the fact that it did, in fact, allow Bush to start a war. I know because he started a war.
Well, the reality of what went down is that AUMF authorized Bush to start the war that he started. He sent the letters to the Speaker of the House and president pro tem of the Senate and everything. He incontestably used the AUMF to authorize the invasion. That, it that light, what facts and history suggest that the AUMF didn’t allow him to do that?
Eh? What does the AUMF have to do with Iraq’s cooperation with inspection?
This kind of Bush White House / right wing news media lie and absolute irrational talk should be strongly rejected and rebuked. However it cannot be rejected when so many Americans agree with the propaganda that Iraq did not cooperate well enough so that somehow and in some ways Bush’s decision to end the peaceful process for war was rational and justifiable.
The AUMF under the specific “use of force” authorization clause directly and specifically requires Bush, if he has determined to use force, to be enforcing ALL UN Security Council Resolutions. That ties Bush future determination to 1441. And 1441 gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply as long as “cooperation” was sufficiently forthcoming.
It doesn’t “require” him to do anything, except this:
THAT is a requirement, note the use of “shall, prior to such exercise”.
This:
…Is not a requirement, it’s an authorization, to use the Armed Forces to defend the U.S. from Iraq, and/or enforce all relevant UNSC resolutions.
Resolutions 660, 678, and 687 were amongst the “all relevant UNSC resolutions”. To act within the authorization given to him by the AUMF, Bush merely had to determine that, in his opinion, the Armed Forces were necessary to enforce 660, 678, and/or 687. Bam. Invasion legal under domestic law.
By your logic, Bush couldn’t invade under the AUMF unless it was to enforce every resolution relevant to Iraq, such as 664, which ordered Iraq to allow foreign nationals to leave Kuwait. Or 665, which imposed economic sanctions.
Now, you seem to badly want the AUMF to function as the Levin Amendment would have, for whatever reason (to excuse the Democrats who voted for it, to accuse Bush of violating domestic law, whatever it is). But if you just read both, you can see what the Levin Amendment contained that the AUMF did not. It granted authorization only to carry out new UNSC resolutions, not “all”, and it limited the authorization to rendering harmless Iraqi WMDs, as opposed to toppling the government and occupying it for years and years.
He could have, but at great personal cost. Which the AUMF removed.
The AUMF did in fact restrain Bush to enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with the use of force authority that he was granted with regard to Iraq in direct language. Res 1441 had become the governing resolution over all preceding ones. You cannot honestly claim that Bush was enforcing UN Res 1441 when he determined to attack Iraq. If you did you would be arguing against T&D and Ravenman.
Bush pissed all over 1441 and the UNSC as a body when he attacked Iraq entirely against the wording set in the language of the AUMF, yet you and others here continue to blame the affirmative voters for the AUMF for putting the decision on Bush’s desk, although it was Bush who shit all over the language put in the AUMF to restrain him.
Congress members should not be blamed for the defiant and despicable actions Bush took to launch a war of aggression against Iraq.
Since you agree with me that Iraq cooperated sufficiently to avert war, you differ from most here including XT and Mace who have attacked my insistence that Iraq did cooperate sufficiently to avoid according to the majority on the UNSC and Blix and el Baradei themselves.
So now by that agreement with me you must now realize that Bush did not in any way ‘enforce’ UN Res 1441 when he used military force against the requirement written into the AUMF.
He’s to file a report it is true, but that does not negate that it stipulates very clearly two reasons for which he is being authorized to use force in the first place.
The Authorization to use force clause in an authorization to use force is the meat and potatoes if the document.
What you are citing is an absurd self delusion as to what that clause means.
Even the clause specifies a requirement that can occur after the decision to enforce UN Resolutions by force has been made and started and is underway.
The authorization specifying reasons to use force cannot be over-ridden by a requirement to produce a report on why it was decided to enforce UN Resolutions by force in the first place.
You must argue that Bush was indeed enforcing UN Resolution 1441 when he decided to invade. And you can’t. No one here can.
Unless it specifically rescinded them, which it did not, then it doesn’t matter for the purposes of the AUMF.
Frankly, though, even if 1441 had rescinded all previous Iraq-related resolutions, Bush could still use the AUMF to invade. The text again:
1441 is part of “all”. If, in Bush’s opinion and Bush’s opinion alone, it was necessary and appropriate to use the Armed Forces to enforce 1441, the AUMF empowered him to use that force. That is how broadly the AUMF was written. It didn’t matter a whit what the UNSC thought of Iraqi compliance or anything else, the sole Decider was Bush.
He wasn’t no. The point is that he didn’t have to, under American law. He did under international law, but the day the U.N. uses force against the United States to save a third-world backwater and enforce international law is still a long, long way off.
I think you’ve gotten their arguments entirely wrong.
He certainly did, whatever his reasons. Blair, too, of course, and a few others.
The wording was that he could use the armed forces “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to…enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” That’s exactly what he did.
The language patently didn’t restrain him, as already pointed out. There’s a stew-pot of blame to go around, it needn’t all be saved for Bush’s bowl. One man does not a war make, not even Hitler or Gavrilo Princip.
Agreed. They should be blamed for giving Bush the power to undertake those despicable actions.
I don’t think that’s what they are saying; they object to your characterizing the cooperation as perfect and immediate, but I don’t recall them saying it was a justification for war.
No, he sure didn’t, and I never said he did. But, he didn’t have to. He could invade to enforce 660, or 678, or 687, or any other he liked. Or, he could determine that an invasion was necessary to enforce 1441. Given that he was the sole person vested with the power to make that determination, he only had to convince himself and no one else.
The **only correct answer **to your question is at least nine of the fifteen members sitting on the UN Security Council plus no veto from any of the five permanent members on the Council.
Do you disagree with what Ravenman posted on this message board back in March 2003, just nine days before Bush’s final days of decision to piss on the AUMF and piss on the UNSC RES 1441 and attack Iraq entirely on his own.
There is no way that Bush could be ‘enforcing’ UN Res 1441 because 1441 was a Resolution that ‘offered’ (with Bush’s endorsement and per Bush’s request) Iraq a FINAL OPPORTUNITY to comply with its disarmament obligations and all preceding UN Resolutions with regard to Iraq. The UNSC did not in any way withdraw that final opportunity to Iraq and decide that US ARMED FORCES could ‘enforce’ one single UN Resolution with regard to Iraq. To state that Bush was enforcing UNSC Resolutions as the was required to do according to the language in the AUMF Oct 2002, is a blatant stretch of the language under the "authorization to use force IN ORDER TO: clause in the AUMF.
I cited something from Ravenman where he and I are in agreement… And here is something where HA and I are in agreement.
Do you stand by that statement HA? Just need to be sure.
Ravenman answered your question pretty well in my preceding post. Here is another from Ravenman back in the FINAL DAYS of DECISION:
So according to Ravenman (and I agree), Res 1441 “does not have any automaticity in authorizing the use of force by member states” so it is impossible that Bush was ‘enforcing 1441’ in any way.
Bush was ‘enforcing’ the Bush Doctrine
And if Ravenman is not enough for you H.A., then T&D also explain it well back in the day:
If you can find where I ever have said the cooperation was ‘perfect’ you need to cite it. Try sticking to facts about what I have written. On the matter of whether the cooperation was immediate I have never denied what Blix said and have cited his full comments about that many times. What I point out was that when he mentioned ‘immediate’ it was not in reference to all cooperation, it was in reference to Iraq’s ‘initiatives on longstanding unresolved issues’ and I point out the fact that Blix called that proactive cooperation and I also pointed out many times that Blix said early on that Iraq’s cooperation on access to sites was immediate with a few relatively minor exceptions.
You should be ashamed of yourself trying to defend these two bozos. XT supported the war but turned against it when the cost to benefit ratio became apparent that it wouldn’t work out. And Mace said immediately following the invasion that it was justified because SH was a nasty man… (Not a direct quote) and did make nice with the UNSC for a decade.
If these two stooges agreed with me that Iraq cooperated sufficiently to avoid war, I would not be attacked relentlessly since I came here posting in agreement with Tony Sinclair last February, for saying exactly that. You have seen what’s been going on here.
Here’s the post by Tony Sinclair in case you forgot about it or missed it entirely:
Mace’s admitted viewpoint in April 2003 was that toppling the Hussein regime was ‘justified’ because SH defied the UNSC for so long. XT has written that he doesn’t care at all about inspections.
Here are XT’s exact words in response to my saying that the inspections were ‘working’.
That is not objecting to your phony and fraudulent impression that I characterized the cooperation as perfect and immediate as I explained why above, It is even worse idiocy to be thinking that the cooperation Iraq provided during the 1441 inspections didn’t matter.
Nope, sorry. The AUMF reads “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to…enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq”
The President.
As he determines to be necessary and appropriate.
To enforce all relevant UNSC resolutions.
So no, the UNSC doesn’t get to decide whether the Armed Forces of the United States get deployed. The AUMF vested that power with the President and the President alone. Just read the text, for Pete’s sake.
No, I don’t disagree with that, but he’s not talking about the war being illegal under American law (i.e., the AUMF), he’s talking about it being illegal under international law, and specifically the UN Charter.
I don’t disagree, and never have, that the war was probably illegal under international law, and a violation of the UN charter (with a bit of wiggle room due to resolution 678).
That doesn’t matter. I don’t know how else to break it to you: the AUMF gave Bush the power to determine if the armed forces were necessary to enforce UNSC resolutions, and not just 1441, at that.
Refusing to see that “some” is a subset of “all”, or that “Final Opportunity” doesn’t mean “All previous resolutions are rescinded”, is just willful ignorance. What is your motive? Is it not enough that Bush violated international law, he’s such a villain that he must have also violated domestic law? Is he such a villain that all accusations of wrongdoing are justified, even the handful that aren’t true? Are you defending the Democrats in Congress who voted for the AUMF? What’s your deal?
Once more: that was the difference between the Levin Amendment and the AUMF we got. Remember this post?
You were right.
And the AUMF that passed did put the decision for national security in the President’s hands. He chose war.
For that fleeting moment, you grasped the difference between the Levin Amendment and the AUMF. Can you not bring yourself to do it again?
Meh, that’s between you three. Just giving my two cents. I don’t disagree that Iraq cooperated well within the bounds of what was reasonable to avoid war.
They can both read and understand others’ posts, so they have that going for them.
That’s not what they’ve disagreed with you on. I agree with you on that point, and yet I still objected to your characterizing Iraqi compliance as a “fact”, because it’s just not.
They aren’t disagreeing with you on your broad conclusions, which is what makes this discussion rather silly.
That’s a legitimate viewpoint. Removing dictators is a moral good. I don’t agree with him that it’s a moral justification for war in the absence of an immediate threat, but I can respect his opinion.
Well, if the WMD issues were just a pre-text for war, then no, the cooperation wouldn’t matter, in the sense that there’s no outcome of the inspections that wouldn’t have led to war. That’s what “pretext” means in that context.
Remember the Gleiwitz incident? That was also a pretext for war, there’s nothing Poland could have done or said that would have prevented being invaded. Iraq was in a similar position; it’s the why of it that deserves discussion.
Don’t be rediculous. We all surely agree that taking out Saddam Hussein could be a moral good. That was not Mace’s written word.
Do you really respect an opinion that is based on Mace’s ignorance of the reality that the Post-1441 inspections and Iraq’s cooperation were working sufficient to avert war?
You missed Mace’s rationale and the point I am making. Mace’s point is illegitimate as well as stupid. He made the point that Bush was justified to start the war because SH had been defying the UNSC for years regarding his disarmament obligations on WMD and inspections.
Since you agree with me that inspections were working I doubt you really agree with Mace that Bush was justified to invade based upon SH’s inspection violation issues over the previous decade.
But let’s keep pretending you respect Mace’s Stupid Conclusion justifying the 2003 invasion of Iraq after the fact. Why would you not respect HRC’s decision to vote to authorize the use military force if Iraq did not agree to allow the UNSC to bring Iraq into compliance with international law and Iraq’s disarmament obligations?
I ask that again while pointing out again that when HRC made her choice there were two factors not in play when Mace justified the invasion.
First, Iraq was in violation of international law because the inspections had ceased. And secondly it could not be assuredly known in October 2002 if Bush was going to invade Iraq based upon the 2001 AUMF that was already given to Bush after the 9/11 attacks.
I consider that a reasonable argument, even though I disagree with it.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Do you really respect an opinion that is based on Mace’s ignorance of the reality that the Post-1441 inspections and Iraq’s cooperation were working sufficient to avert war?
[/quote]
I don’t think he’s ignorant of that at all. If he wrote that war was justified because of Iraqi defiance of post-1441 inspections, I must have missed that post. Perhaps you could point me to it.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
You missed Mace’s rationale and the point I am making. Mace’s point is illegitimate as well as stupid. He made the point that Bush was justified to start the war because SH had been defying the UNSC for years regarding his disarmament obligations on WMD and inspections.
[/quote]
Thus, Hussein, in addition to being a brutal, murderous dictator, had a history of not only aggressive war, but of defiance of treaties and international law. I can certainly understand the case for all that justifying a war to remove Hussein, even if, again, I personally disagree. I don’t want the United States to be in the business of choosing the leaders of other nations except in the face of an immediate threat.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Since you agree with me that inspections were working I doubt you really agree with Mace that Bush was justified to invade based upon SH’s inspection violation issues over the previous decade.
[/quote]
I don’t agree with him, no, as I already wrote. I just consider his position reasonable.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
But let’s keep pretending you respect Mace’s Stupid Conclusion justifying the 2003 invasion of Iraq after the fact. Why would you not respect HRC’s decision to vote to authorize the use military force if Iraq did not agree to allow the UNSC to bring Iraq into compliance with international law and Iraq’s disarmament obligations?
[/quote]
Because the authorization she voted for and championed allowed Bush and Bush alone to determine if there was to be a war or not. I wrote in the Hubris thread about the importance of the separation of powers of government. What the AUMF did was to effectively delegate Congress’ power to declare war on Iraq to the President. Such power should never been given to one person, which is why the Constitution separated the war power between Congress and the President.
The various defenses, such as that a Republican majority was likely on its way into Congress, or that Bush refused to go to the UN without the authorization he demanded, are utterly unpersuasive. It would frankly have been better if the war were a purely Republican affair, because that would make it easier to escape. And as I wrote a few posts ago, it was Bush who raised the spector of the danger of Iraqi WMDs. For him to then refuse to do anything about it because of a quibble with Congress would be slitting his own throat. I say let him do it, and see who blinks first.
The Levin Amendment, or better still, no prior authorization at all, was the right course. War powers shouldn’t be delegated to a war-monger, or any individual, and wars don’t need to be pre-approved months in advance. If the UN were to refuse to pass 1441 without the U.S. President having a war authorization in hand, then they truly are worthless and we’d be better off alone. If Hussein were to refuse inspections because the U.S. President didn’t have a war authorization in hand, one would swiftly be passed and his country would be crushed below the mightiest armed force on the globe, and I’m certain he was well aware of that, based on his near-total efforts to avoid that outcome.
The AUMF was not needed to resume inspections.
Using that AUMF required Bush to determine that Iraq was involved in 9/11. It gave him the sole power to make that determination, granted, but doing so in the absence of any evidence linking Iraq to 9/11 would be nothing less than a scandal. Why spare him that ordeal by giving him an AUMF that required him only to determine that force was needed to defend the nation or enforce UNSC resolutions? There was WMD intel, after all, shoddy as it was; the same can’t be said of 9/11 evidence. The AUMF made it vastly easier for Bush to invade…so how on earth could it be said to prevent him from doing so?