HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Did Congress REALLY Vote ...

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 04:40 PM

Did Congress REALLY Vote For The Iraq War?

This is not a thread to get Hillary off the hook for stupidly trusting Bush... but whether Bush violated the AUMF. Like most of my threads here they were originally posted in the Thom Hartmann forum.

If you ignore all the endless litany of "whereas" after "whereas", and skip to the end of the 2002 Authorization To Use Military Force, it seems Congress approved a conditional AUMF, not a blank check. Here's the final section

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

[[Page 116 STAT. 1501]]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.



There were no existing UN resolutions authorizing force. The US tried to get a new one. In its original
drafts the US sought permission to attack on its own and it was REJECTED. The US only got the UNSC to
demand WMD inspectors be allowed back into Iraq or there were would be dire consequences. The UNSC never
actually authorized force.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--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.


With no UNSC resolutions authorizing force, for Bush to invade he had
had to claim there WAS a "continuing threat" from Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and


Here Bush simply lied. The UN had acted. Inspectors were back in Iraq... and they were finding evidence that Saddam's WMDs had been destroyed back in 1991. But Bush had a timetable... the optimum time to invade would be in the early spring so the work of the Inspectors had to be sabotaged.

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.


The Iraq/911 connection was always untrue.

Congress was foolish for trusting Bush who since the spring was public about setting up a rationale to invade Iraq. Congress allowed Bush to roll right over them with a carefully crafted strategy just before the election. Bush claimed he was interested in the viability
of the UN... and resolutions had to be enforced. He claimed he was not interested in a war, it was a last resort. In reality he was stalling for time... until weather conditions were optimum. He never cared what Congress or the UN wanted. He was going to invade either way and played the public, Congress, and the UN like a fiddle... and We The People have let him get away with war crimes.

45 replies, 2469 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply Did Congress REALLY Vote For The Iraq War? (Original post)
eniwetok Apr 2016 OP
bigwillq Apr 2016 #1
Skittles Apr 2016 #4
bigwillq Apr 2016 #7
Skittles Apr 2016 #19
bigwillq Apr 2016 #20
Skittles Apr 2016 #23
bigwillq Apr 2016 #24
Skittles Apr 2016 #25
bigwillq Apr 2016 #26
Skittles Apr 2016 #34
bigwillq Apr 2016 #35
Skittles Apr 2016 #36
Reter Apr 2016 #32
Skittles Apr 2016 #33
30Draw Apr 2016 #42
BlueMTexpat Apr 2016 #6
bigwillq Apr 2016 #8
BlueMTexpat Apr 2016 #13
Qutzupalotl Apr 2016 #27
LiberalArkie Apr 2016 #29
BlueMTexpat Apr 2016 #31
karynnj Apr 2016 #12
BlueMTexpat Apr 2016 #14
karynnj Apr 2016 #16
BlueMTexpat Apr 2016 #17
Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2016 #37
BlueMTexpat Apr 2016 #38
Skittles Apr 2016 #2
eniwetok Apr 2016 #3
Skittles Apr 2016 #5
Demonaut Apr 2016 #9
Skittles Apr 2016 #10
Demonaut Apr 2016 #11
BlueMTexpat Apr 2016 #15
Skittles Apr 2016 #18
BlueMTexpat Apr 2016 #21
Skittles Apr 2016 #22
HassleCat Apr 2016 #28
JHB Apr 2016 #30
eniwetok Apr 2016 #41
rug Apr 2016 #39
eniwetok Apr 2016 #40
Proud Liberal Dem Apr 2016 #43
eniwetok Apr 2016 #44
Proud Liberal Dem Apr 2016 #45

Response to eniwetok (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 04:41 PM

1. Yes, Mrs. Clinton voted for it.

 

She's responsible for the mess we are in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigwillq (Reply #1)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 05:05 PM

4. "Mrs. Clinton"?

WTF is up with that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 05:12 PM

7. I just called Bernie "Mr. Sanders"

 

in a thread a few minutes ago. Sometimes I say Bernie, sometimes Mr. Sanders. Sometimes I say Hillary, sometimes Mrs. Clinton.
Is that ok with you, or are you going to kick my ass???????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigwillq (Reply #7)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 06:35 PM

19. it is NOT the same

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #19)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 06:37 PM

20. Yes, it is.

 

That's her name. That's his name.

I don't know what else you want me to call them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigwillq (Reply #20)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 06:44 PM

23. MR and MS are the same

not MR and MRS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #23)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 06:46 PM

24. So, I should call her Ms. Clinton?

 



I thought MS was when a person is single.

Ms. Rodham

If they used their married name, I thought it was MRS

Mrs. Clinton

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigwillq (Reply #24)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 07:08 PM

25. if you're inclined to do so then yes

although I am unsure why HILLARY CLINTON does not suffice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #25)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 07:12 PM

26. Ok. Thanks.

 

I called her Mrs. Clinton because a DUer objected to it a few weeks ago, saying it was sexist and all.
My friends call my Mom Mrs. Bigwillq, and I don't think it's sexist. I think it's a sign of respect.
So, now I like to call HILLARY CLINTON Mrs. Clinton because it bothers some people. Just having a big of fun on the 'ole DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigwillq (Reply #26)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 10:32 PM

34. it is NOT a sign of respect

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #34)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 10:33 PM

35. Mrs. Clinton

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigwillq (Reply #35)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 02:06 AM

36. over and out

*done here*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #25)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 10:14 PM

32. She's married

 

She's Mrs. Clinton. Cut the PC BS, this is why we lose elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Reply #32)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 10:31 PM

33. she does not prefer to be called MRS. CLINTON

so it is BULLSHIT to call her that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 10:08 AM

42. What the heck is wrong with Mr. and Mrs. ?

 

Next thing you know, saying yes sir, yes ma'am and holding the door for folks will be disrespectful.

FFS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigwillq (Reply #1)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 05:12 PM

6. She was not alone.

But she is the ONLY ONE being held wholly accountable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Even John Kerry was given a pass on this in 2004 (by eminent "progressives" such as Will Pitt). Kerry, with his long experience in the Senate and knowledge of foreign relations, had much less excuse.

The main difference between John Kerry and Hillary Clinton is ____________. And there it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 05:13 PM

8. I hold Mr. Kerry responsible.

 

I hold them all responsible.

All of them should be ashamed.

BTW, Congrats on 7,000 posts!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigwillq (Reply #8)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 05:27 PM

13. Thanks for the congrats!

I just noticed that when I posted.

The whole group (29/50) of Dems who joined the GOPers in this demonstration of malfeasance literally sickens me, especially when I see what devastation has been wrought as a result. I have had a front-row seat for the consequences.

But I don't really have any confidence whatsoever in someone whose entire "foreign policy" seems to consist of repeating that he voted against the 2003 Iraq War Resolution. That was, after all, 13 years ago.

Bernie has voted for AUMFs in other situations before and since. So there is no reason to believe that he would not use military force every bit as much as Hillary might. She has at least acknowledged that her 2003 vote was wrong.

Bernie's lack of deep knowledge of foreign policy (he has lots of superficial knowledge, not unlike that of many DUers) and his complete lack of experience with today's global scene (we simply cannot afford someone learning the ropes on the job as we have occasionally been able to do in the past) are two major reasons why I support Hillary.

She makes mistakes, yes. But she admits them. And, most importantly, she learns from them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #13)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 07:17 PM

27. If Clinton had learned from Iraq

she would not have been so hung-ho about overthrowing Khaddafi.

We cannot afford someone who doesn't learn from her mistakes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Qutzupalotl (Reply #27)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 07:28 PM

29. I think that is the main thing with a lot of us. If when she became SOS she had gone in

as a peacemaker instead of someone who seemed to want to start fights, we would not even be thinking of her war vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Qutzupalotl (Reply #27)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 09:55 PM

31. Libya was an entirely

different situation. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 05:24 PM

12. I'll fill in the blank

Both in Oct 2002 spoke of needing to get inspectors in and working with the UN. Where they differ, is that John Kerry DID speak out as he said he would if Bush did not do all he could and to go to war only as a last resort.

On January 23, 2003, Kerry said at Georgetown University that Bush had not exhausted diplomacy and if he went to war, it would not be as a last resort. Kerry erred in voting because it attached his name to something that was very counter to the values that he espoused throughout his long career.

Hillary, on the other hand, did not speak out in the run up to the war .. and both she and Bill criticized those who did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #12)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 05:37 PM

14. Please also remember that Hillary

was a first-term Senator from New York. NYC was the site of 9-11. Her constitutents and NY's senior Senator were extremely hawkish. At the time, her political experience was primarily in US domestic policy.

Kerry's vast experience in foreign affairs far surpassed Hillary's in 2003. Not only was he well-versed in foreign affairs generally with a longer career in the Senate, but had first-hand experience of the military. From Vietnam - another war that should NOT have happened.

One would expect Kerry, of anyone, to have been MUCH more skeptical than he was. Mind you, I am a fan of SoS Kerry and a true admirer of what he has been able to accomplish, a good part of which was initiated by Hillary.

But again, you give him a pass for his vote. But not her. I can see only ONE major difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #14)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 05:56 PM

16. He does not get a pass

Not to mention, you ignore all Hillary's experience as First Lady. I know that Kerry allies were extremely angry when Clinton people thought it necessary to argue that she was chosen as SoS, rather than him because he was that not strong enough. You can't both argue Hillary's golden resume and equate her to an average first term Senator!

Hillary being from NY does not get her a pass any more than Kerry being from MA, where 2 of the planes came from. He knew people on those planes. I also know that NYC itself was not pro war even in 2003. My three daughters and my husband and I joined a very large demonstration in January or February 2003 in NYC. We lived in the area. I fault Bill and Hillary for NOT speaking out in early 2003, when the inspectors had been in and found nothing. Kerry did speak out at GWU - even though (unknown at the time) he was dealing with a cancer diagnosis and some pre surgery treatments before surgery in March.

Bill and Hillary were the ONLY Democrats with a huge megaphone. Had they spoken out, there could have been critical mass against an attack. They were silent. Note that Bill Clinton had far more information than Kerry did.

Kerry's speech could have been given with either a yes or no vote. One factor that made a no vote difficult is that he, like most of the Senate had voted for a resolution in 1998 that Bill Clinton had asked for that condemned Iraq, without giving authority to go to war. Kerry should have voted no, but it is easier now to see what he meant by giving Bush support, to help him have leverage to get a diplomatic solution. Remember that when they voted the inspectors had not been in since 1998 and they had just been pushed to agree to go to the UN. Consider that without the threat of an attack in Syria, the chemical weapons would never have been surrendered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #16)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 06:10 PM

17. OK, so you don't give him a

pass. But you focus unduly on Hillary's experience as First Lady, IMO, when it was her 2008 campaign against Prez Obama and her tireless campaigning for him after she had conceded that were more likely the reason for his appointment of her to the SoS post than anything else.

Another factor in the decision was very likely that John Kerry was a long-serving, respected and effective Senator from MA with longer experience in the Senate who could be counted on to support Prez O's policies. As many of us have stated, it is extremely important to have effective allies in Congress - another issue I have with Bernie, who has failed to develop such relationships over his LONG period in the US Congress.

As it happened, when Kerry was finally appointed SoS in 2013, MA had an interim Senator until now-Sen. Markey stepped up to the plate. If you are from MA, you know this better than I.

Again, I stress that I am an admirer of John Kerry. I also voted for him for President in 2004 and have never regretted doing so. I only wish that he had won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #14)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 02:15 AM

37. They were both running for President.

And anyone who didn't know, at the time, the IWR was just a pretense to war was an idiot. Bush wanted his war and spineless politicians didn't want to get caught on the wrong side of a coming home parade after a "quick and easy victory"

End of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #37)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 08:15 AM

38. I don't believe that either Kerry

or Clinton was running for President in 2002. But perhaps you are better informed than I about that. From what I remember, Kerry was only a candidate in 2004 and Clinton not before 2008.

As for Bush's intentions from the get-go - even before 9-11 - they were to go after Saddam Hussein under ANY circumstances whatsoever. That was clear to ANYONE who was paying attention from 2000 on.

That was clear from his choice of Cheney (the guy who was STILL deeply POed because Bush I & Baker stopped the war before ousting Saddam in 1991) as a running mate, and his appointment of neocon warmongers (Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton, Rumsfeld, etc.) to key senior government positions early on. I was paying close attention and writing letters to legislators to point this out, way before the 2002 IWR. Neither MD Senator voted for the IWR and I like to think that both were paying attention as too many Dems apparently were not.

Powell was only and always window dressing. He was never part of the "inner circle", but let himself be used, especially in the UN situation, for which I will never forgive him. Abu Ghraib was when the scales finally fell from his eyes, but by then, it was WAY too late, so he went through the motions for the rest of Buhs's 1st term. Condi Rice knew zilch about the ME, but both Cheney and Rumsfeld, like other neocons, were stuck back in the days of the Cold War, and wanted to restart some form of it because it would be good for their business interests. So Condi's outdated but fairly credible knowledge of USSR policies got her into the inner circle, where she was too "honored" and dazzled to be critical of their warmongering in the ME. Or anything or anywhere else, for that matter. Like Powell, she was also window dressing in a way because neither was a full-blown neocon.

By his second term, even feckless dimwit Bush realized that his policies had completely backfired. By then, Condi was the only one he trusted. But it was all too late by then and his disastrous policies have had disastrous consequences which will continue for some time in the future.

Unfortunately, what you see as the end of the story has not been. And that is my problem with Sanders: yes, he voted the right way on the IWR, but he has not only and always been anti-war, much as he would like you to believe that. His anti-IWR vote is the extent of his "knowledge" of foreign policy that I can see.

It is simply not enough for today's world where things are never as clear-cut as they were in the fall of 2002. That is the end of the story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 04:50 PM

2. they voted to give a sociopathic nitwit the authority he needed to proceed

ANYONE who thought that was a good idea *SUCKS*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #2)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 05:04 PM

3. Hillary was an idiot to trust Bush would not lie

Clearly Clinton was an idiot to trust Bush would not just lie in order to go to war. It was clear the Bush Junta was building the public case for war going back to at least the spring of 02... and was timing the campaign to manipulate Dems into supporting a war before the election... and to hammer them if they didn't. And she was also an idiot for not calling Bush out when Bush tried to manipulate the UNSC into approving a resolution that ANY nation could launch an attack even without UNSC approval.

My question isn't whether Hillary was an idiot... clearly she was.... but whether the wording of the AUMF would have prevented Bush from invading if he actually told the truth.

Of course those in Congress who voted for the AUMF could then hide behind Bush's certifications.

Either way Hillary is still on the hook.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #3)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 05:06 PM

5. she was complicit

her idiocy was not seeing how badly it would turn out, which is pretty bad considering so many of us on DU knew it would be a disaster

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 05:13 PM

9. not to give them an excuse but at the time it was "you're either with us or against us" mantra

it was wrong then but they were manipulated by the RWingers and the louder public in support of revenge

you could see it in their faces...damned if you do and damned if you don't..except for Bernie and a few others

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demonaut (Reply #9)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 05:15 PM

10. I understand that

however, I would never have voted to use our troops in their sick game - and that is exactly what they did

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #10)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 05:18 PM

11. true...and no one held to account..yet. We need term limits for the senate and congress

they need to lose their jobs at an appointed time...not hold on to power for as long as they can by any means possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #10)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 05:41 PM

15. If you were a junior Senator

from NY state whose constituents were still reeling from 9-11, you may not have been able to do that as blithely as you now proclaim. Just sayin ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #15)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 06:34 PM

18. YES I WOULD

because I grew up in a military family, served in the military and KNEW FROM DAY ONE DUBYA WAS A LYING PIECE OF SHIT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #18)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 06:41 PM

21. Good for you!

But you probably should never run for an elective office unless you fully realize what it actually means to serve your constituents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #21)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 06:43 PM

22. LOL

I would never "serve my constituents" by agreeing to a SENSELESS WAR BASED ON LIES

and Iraq had *NOTHING* to do with 9/11

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 07:23 PM

28. Yes, they did and they all knew it.

 

Only a fool would believe GW Bush was not champing at the bit to be the wartime president. Every last one who voted for it knew exactly what would happen. They voted for war because they were afraid of looking weak, afraid of the rabid backlash, just afraid. Nobody was duped, fooled, deceived, or anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 07:57 PM

30. The "conditional" was a smokescreen...

By the time the vote was held in October 2002 the Bushies had been weaving together "911" and "Saddam" for a year, and were already into the "catapult the propaganda" phase of pushing for an attack. It was crystal clear they wanted to invade Iraq and were simply laying the groundwork to go ahead with it when they were ready.

Members of congress knew that if they stood in the way of it and another terrorist attack happened -- especially one that involved a WMD -- they would be crucified. And if the Maladministration could pull it off "quick and cheap" the way they said they could, then it would all be behind them by the 2004 elections. And if they couldn't, wouldn't it be Bush's fault?

In October 2002, signing on for a "conditional" use of force was the path of least resistance in the face of pressure from Bush and a shirking Congress' responsibilities under the Constitution when it comes to declaring war.

Anyone who signed it believing it didn't mean troops going into Iraq was naive and innocent enough to spot herds of unicorns. And no member of Congress fits that description.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHB (Reply #30)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 10:04 AM

41. Bush made one convincing argument... but of course it was a lie

But made one convincing argument... that if the US didn't back up it's UNSC resolutions, it threatened the credibility of the UN itself. Of course Bush had no use for going to the UN except as political cover for his determination to invade regardless of what the UNSC did... and the proof: Here's the wording the US wanted in what became UNSC 1441

10. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declaration submitted by Iraq to the Council and failure by Iraq at any time to comply and cooperate fully in accordance with the provisions laid in this resolution, shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and that such breach authorizes member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area ;

This wording would have left it to member states... ie the US and its phony Coalition Of The Coerced, to decide what was material breach. This wording was REJECTED... which is why so many rabid GOPers in the US went on a French-hating rampage... so infantile they rename French Fries on the Capitol cafeteria menu to Freedom Fries.

The final 1441 language that was passed was

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.


Here the UNSC left to itself what what be the consequences if Iraq refused to cooperate. Since this stood in the way of Bush invading on his own, he just invaded without the UN's approval... and then lied in his presidential determination that Iraq DID pose a threat to US security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Original post)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 08:40 AM

39. No one voted to declare war.

 

The vote was to authorize the President to use the Armed Forces "as he determines to be necessary", a power any President already has as Commander-in-Chief.

Which Bush promptly took as a blank check with nary a peep from Congress.

Everybody was hiding behind paper while the bloodshed commenced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #39)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 09:57 AM

40. that's the key difference...

The AUMF wasn't a declaration of war by Congress. Those who signed on to the AUMF demonstrated utter naivete in trusting Bush ... and pure cowardice not to challenge him when it was clear he was doing everything he could to go around the a key condition... getting UNSC approval...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Original post)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 11:16 AM

43. The bottom line

is that Bush *could* have refused to go to war and let the inspections process finish on its own (and gotten some deserved credit for ensuring that Iraq was WMD-free and avoiding a costly invasion/occupation). He also probably could have gone to war without Congress saying or doing anything. The IWR gave a "fig leaf" or "veneer" of legitimacy to his eventual decision to invade Iraq but many Democrats whom voted for this did not express a burning desire to go to war with Iraq but, considering the time period and how ramped up everybody was about 9/11 and the "fog of fear" everybody was in at the time, I can understand why many Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, felt like they had to vote for it- to err on the side of caution if nothing else because, at least at that point, inspectors had not been in Iraq for several years. Personally, I couldn't understand how/why lots of people thought that Iraq could posed a serious threat to its neighbors, let alone us and didn't understand Bush/Cheney's obsession with Iraq and not someplace more volatile/unpredictable like North Korea. However, the IWR was ultimately more of a symbolic gesture and voting it down would still not have prevented Bush/Cheney from doing what they were ultimately determined to do IMHO. Invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do but Bush/Cheney were ultimately responsible for that decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #43)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 04:33 PM

44. Bush started the war right when the evidence of WMD destruction was uncovered.

Bush *could* have refused to go to war and let the inspections process finish on its own (and gotten some deserved credit for ensuring that Iraq was WMD-free and avoiding a costly invasion/occupation).
Bush started the war right when WMD inspectors were finding the evidence Saddam did destroy WMDs back in 1991. Bush's warning a few weeks later stopped their work. But then he always intended to go to war around March when the weather was favorable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #44)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 06:05 PM

45. Exactly

As I recall, Cheney, in particular, was incredulously dismissing the UN Weapon Inspectors' findings and right-wingers were smearing the weapons inspectors personally, especially Scott Ritter, and declaring them to be incompetent and that Saddam was managing- against all odds- to hide all of the proscribed weapons. I had little doubt that we were going to war regardless of what the UN Inspectors found- or, in this case, didn't find but the IWR had little or nothing to do with Bush's ultimate decision to invade Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread