We’re not obsessed with a meaningless phrase. It could have said “as the president deems necessary to keep the yin and yang in balance”. The president is the one who decides whether it was necessary or not. That’s the blank check.
Of course, you can devastate our argument with one cite from one person other than you who thinks it matters. As I said earlier, it doesn’t need to be a Senator; it doesn’t need to be a Congressional aid; it can be a Junior Assistant Dog Catcher in Nowheresville, USA. Anyone other than you.
29 Democratic Senators and 82 Democratic Representatives voted yes. Can you name one who has said the war was a violation of the AUMF they voted for?
Let’s go through that, then.
If the hawk Democrats were in control of the party (which they were, look at who they nominated for President), then who negotiated this strict language you imagine the AUMF contained? And why would they say nothing instead of using the violation of the law to discredit the hawks and retake control?
Why didn’t the media report on this violation of the law? Why didn’t any legal experts? Why didn’t anyone?
What’s fascinating about this is that you’re demonstrating exactly the same mindset that Bush may have had during the runup to war. He may have been utterly convinced that Iraq was hiding WMDs, and the inspectors failing to find them was a failure of the inspections, and not evidence that the WMDs didn’t exist. You are utterly convinced that Bush broken domestice law, and the complete lack of evidence outside of your own mind has done nothing to dissuade you. Like Bush, you discount all contrary evidence. For him, the inspectors finding nothing mean Hussein was hiding weapons. For you, no Congressmen or anyone else mentioning this serious violation of the law is evidence that they were complicit, derelict, saw no point in it, etc, rather than being evidence that the law wasn’t violated.
So, if you want to understand what may have led us to war, namely confirmation bias, just examine your own thinking on this matter. It is a note-perfect example of confirmation bias.
The Times doesn’t vote in the Senate. Senators should be held to a higher standard.
Good luck. You have zero evidence on your side. Meanwhile, I’ll be looking into my pet theory, that Bush owed Saddam a sizeable gambling debt accrued at one of their world-leaders-only cocaine parties, and invaded to welch on the debt. My theory has just as much evidence behind it as yours.
There is no case that he violated the AUMF.
What does it mean to “get away with” that lie? Appear only on friendly media outlets? There’s nothing you or anyone else can do about that, Bush won’t be on Rachel Maddow anytime soon.
Sometimes the truth hurts. Yes, many Democrats share blame for the war, though the lion’s share belongs to Bush. You need to make peace with that reality. Life isn’t a morality play of flawless heroes and dastardly villains.
He didn’t have to enforce only 1441, he was empowered to enforce “all”.
Invading and seizing control of Iraq certainly enforced compliance to 1441. 1441 wasn’t a statute describing a prohibited behavior, like a regular criminal statute is. It was a list of demands. Military force could absolutely be used to enforce compliance with that list, whether or not it was already being complied with.
I told you, complete with a Russ Feingold quote, you just didn’t like the answer and thus didn’t address it, a favorite tactic of yours (how’s that AUMF/Levin Amendment comparison going, by the way?). It limited military operations to Iraq.
Maybe we need to give the inspectors more time to find Fooled By W’s AUMF violation by Bush. I think it will be a matter of months, not years before they verify if it exists or not.
1441 gave Iraq a FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY which meant that “ALL” preceding Resolutions were covered by this FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY which also did not have a deadline to achieve ‘full compliance’ with all.
Iraq was in fact ‘complying with 1441’ which meant he was ‘not in violation of international law’ in a sense that military force could be used to enforce 'all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq. That legally defined status of “FINAL OPPORTUNITY” started the moment Iraq agreed and began cooperating with the post-1441 inspection regime and did not end with a UNSC decision to revoke it.
Your claim that Congress ‘empowered’ Bush ‘to enforce all’ is just a ‘pick and choose’ requirement and that Bush could legitimately ignore one major part of that all (1441) is to suggest that Congress puts words in legislation that are intended to take up space and mean nothing.
Bush could not in any way ‘enforce’ UNSC Resolution 1441 if the UNSC did not set enforcement to be accomplished by military force. Bush could not ‘enforce’ UNSC 1441 or any UNSC relevant Resolution mentioned within 1441 since 1441 was being ‘enforced’ with the judgment by the majority of the UNSC that Iraq was cooperating and working toward full compliance, peacefully.
It was a FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY with no deadline or date set for full compliance. The main requirement was that Iraq cooperate and work toward full compliance which in the opinion of the majority of the UNSC Iraq had achieved full cooperation sometime in February 2003.
Bush ‘enforced’ Bush’s ultimatum that Iraq be declared in full compliance by March 17, 2003. So sorry H.A. that date and that ultimatum are not on any list within the language of 1441.
Bush did not enforce 1441. Bush pissed on 1441 and went around it on his own terms. That is not what the AUMF authorized him to do.
He doesn’t say Bush violated the AUMF, or anything like that.
The problem with “if that failed” is that the AUMF let Bush and Bush alone decide if the UN process had failed.
We’ve been over this. 1441 did not rescind any previous resolutions.
Under international law and the UN Charter, you are correct. Invading would require an imminent threat that justified pre-emptive self-defense, or a UNSC resolution authorizing war.
The AUMF is a different kettle of fish, though. Invading under it required a presidential determination, and that is all.
How so? What was the alternative?
Write that he was empowered to enforce “some”?
That he was empowered to enforce “all, simultaneously”? Because, again, it’s impossible to enforce over a dozen different resolutions, some of them addressing situations that no longer existed, with a single military campaign, enforcing “all” was not physically possible. By your logic, if the UNSC voted and declared Iraq in breach of 1441 and a coalition invasion was put together, the AUMF would forbid the U.S. from participating, since they’d also have to enforce the resolution about extending Iraqi oil sales, and the one about the UN Compensation Commission, and the one about the UN Special Commission, and the one about…
List the resolutions?
Limit the authorization to only UNSC resolutions passed after the AUMF? Oh, wait, that would have worked, and they had that option, and voted it down.
None of the ones I listed above mention military force either, so Bush couldn’t enforce them either! Oddly, this AUMF made military force impossible! And only you have figured it out!
No it didn’t. Bush was given the authority to use force 'in order to enforce All relevent UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq. He didnt enforce any. Bush defied the UNSC that accepted that 1441 and inspections were working.
The AUMF did not tell Bush he was authorized to use force in order to defy all UNSC resolutions if he determines on his own that inspections were not working.
Had there been no 1441 passed then Bush could have determined it was necessary to enforce the resolutions regarding Iraq because the UNSC was not capable of doing so.
And the problem with your argument is that ‘if that failed’ did not fail, so falling back on that ‘what if’ does your argument no good.
I am not suggesting that it did or needed to. 1441 was a final opportunity to comply - it was not forgiveness of Iraq’ decade long violation of international law. But 1441 covered all relevant preceding resolutions and would have closed them if Iraq complied. They would never have rescinded them.
He enforced them. Needlessly, as it happens, but he enforced them.
That would be an oddly specific statute. Now, they could have passed the Levin Amendment, which limited the use of force to carrying out a new UNSC resolution that itself authorized the use of force, or declined to pre-authorize force at all…but our Congress failed us and enabled an inept war-monger.
Disagree on both counts; as has been well-established.
I say it didn’t fail, you say it didn’t fail, Sen. Rockefeller presumably says it didn’t fail…but none of us were empowered to use military force if they thought it had failed, one man was, and that was President Bush.
You are absolutely wrong with this line of thought you have dreamed up. The UNSC won’t rescind a resolution that requires compliance until compliance is received. I know you know there was no deadline in 1441 for full compliance so all your talk about rescinding resolutions while Iraq was in the act of complying with 1441 and prior to full compliance is pure bogus meaningless nonsense.
So, you understand that any resolution that hasn’t been rescinded is part of “all” resolutions. Kudos. The reason why a resolution wasn’t rescinded is irrelevant to the question of “What resolutions are part of “all relevant resolutions regarding Iraq?””
The answer is: “Any that have not been rescinded”.
You have not addressed ‘until compliance is received’ and ‘Final Opportunity to comply without a deadline’. If you did, you would realize that ‘rescinding resolutions’ has nothing to do with anything being discusses here or any discussion about Iraq and inspections.
Nor have I addressed the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalos, or Rachel & Guy’s Celebrity Cook-Off. This is because what I wrote was relevant to the question at hand. You might try the same tactic.
Whether a given resolution contained a given phrase has nothing, at all, to do with whether that resolution is part of the set of “all resolutions relevant to Iraq” or not.