Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: When Truth Tried to Stop War [View all]magellan
(13,257 posts)48. The bombing campaign that took place in 2002 wasn't de facto
It was breathtaking in its intent, intensity, and targets:
The Other Bomb Drops - The Nation, June 13, 2005
As for UN Security Council Resolution 1441: as you yourself point out, it did NOT authorize the use of force if Saddam failed to comply with its inspection regime - unlike the IWR. Which is why, in March 2003, France and Russia vowed to veto any US-backed UN resolution that in effect authorized war in Iraq, and Bush never went back to the UN again, instead forming his "coalition of the willing".
The IWR otoh granted Bush the authority to use US military force against Iraq as he deemed necessary, with limited constraints.
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.
(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
(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.
(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.
(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
(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.
All Bush had to do after that was decide his patience with diplomacy - something he had little time for in any case - had run out. And that's precisely what he did.
Anyone who voted for the IWR was asleep at the wheel - and that's the BEST I can say about them.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
82 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Joe Wilson also provided information their reasons for invafing Itaq was false and his reward
Thinkingabout
Feb 2013
#1
It was Geirge W Bush with the final decision, the ones you listed authorized action
Thinkingabout
Feb 2013
#5
Well of course it was shrub, that's not the point. Without these traitors siding with
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#10
I read the names, the point I was trying to make to you it would have happened without the support
Thinkingabout
Feb 2013
#11
That's simply not true. Go look at the records, there were quite a few republicans that opposed
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#12
There was nothing wrong with the Democratic vote on IWR. As I explain in my post below. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#14
Yes, there was. Apparently revising history is not the sole purview of the republicans. n/t
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#17
Go ahead and explain away my response then because you have to revise history to be correct. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#19
And here's another republican strategy, accuse your opponent of doing what you're doing.
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#23
You just revised the Iraq War Resolution below. So I would say you just did the GOP tactic. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#24
Of course you would. It doesn't change the record. Without the votes of those DINOs the act
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#25
You keep trying to pretend facts away, it doesn't work. Deal with the facts or admit defeat.
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#27
Every one of them shows that without the Senate vote the acts fails and the rest
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#34
It was a clear as day then what the IWR was about and no amount of obfuscation changes that.
Comrade Grumpy
Feb 2013
#45
I am in favor of the OP, and as I said, cite something that disagrees with me and the article.
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#39
Go push your blog somewhere else. You're not the first, nor will you be the
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#40
OpEdNews is not my blog. Let's count how many times you have been wrong or ignored facts
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#41
Think about how illogical that statement is. The provisions in the IWR were not met.
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#53
I stand on my previous call outs of your inaccuracies and bad faith efforts. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#54
Of course you do. But it still doesn't change the fact that Democratic Senators
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#64
The republicans were a foregone conclusion, only one of them voted against.
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#52
Fact matter, and they are not on your side. Here it is real easy and simple
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#18
Just as I thought, you are revising history to make your point. Exactly what you accused me of doing
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#22
Things were not clear to lots of folks including a majority of the UN Sec Council Nations
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#28
And as regards the bombing, there were many such escalations, like Operation Desert Fox and
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#58
It was clear at the time what the IWR was...a free ticket for Bush to go to war.
Comrade Grumpy
Feb 2013
#47
Political ambrition trumps the truth every time. Not to mention money.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2013
#31
The archive.org article did make a factual error. Prescott Bush was George H.W. daddy not....
LongTomH
Feb 2013
#80
The Lies that Led to the Iraq War and the Persistant Myth of 'Intelligence Failure'
Octafish
Feb 2013
#76