Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

1. The President does not determine the case for war, by himself.

as he determines .. as he determines
as he determines .. as he determines
as he determines .. as he determines

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 --

as he determines .. as he determines
as he determines .. as he determines
as he determines .. as he determines

to be necessary​

Different context. As you know. That is you being dishonest again.

 

[Correll]

That a man focuses on one reason for doing something does not mean that there are not other reasons for doing it.

Are you saying this?

That a sitting Christian US President focuses on one reason to invade a Muslim does not mean that there are not other reasons for doing it.

I made a general statement about the way that people make decisions.


Why would you need to restate it, to limit it to a more specific case before making a point?


It seems all you really did there, was not really ask a question, but make a point that the "man" was a Christian, as though that is a bad thing.


YOu are a bigot.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Different context.

What is different about the context:

1. The President does not determine the case for war, by himself.


The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --

 

[Correll]

Different context.

What is different about the context:

1. The President does not determine the case for war, by himself.


The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --

Correct. A general statement about how the "case for war" is made and a more specific sentence about how a certain requirement in regard to a specific task will be met.


Completely different context. That you pretend to not know this, is just another example of your dishonesty.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Mmm, 12 listed points. So many more than one.

Just to be clear can we refer to the following list as “the whereas factors” that precede the paragraoh’s that define the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002?

​

​

The Following is the actual text of Joint Resolution 114 - please note the whereas factors are not referred to as justifications for war in the AUMF.

ACTUAL Text:

107th CONGRESS 2d Session H. J. RES. 114 To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES October 2, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas.............

• iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
• Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
• Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
• Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
• Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
• The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
• Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement

I have copied all the whereas factors that are not tied to 1441 or have anything to do with WMD.

Do you agree that this list is accurate and true?

 

[Correll]

Mmm, 12 listed points. So many more than one.

Just to be clear can we refer to the following list as “the whereas factors” that precede the paragraoh’s that define the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002?

​

​

The Following is the actual text of Joint Resolution 114 - please note the whereas factors are not referred to as justifications for war and n the AUMF.

ACTUAL Text:

107th CONGRESS 2d Session H. J. RES. 114 To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES October 2, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas.............

• iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
• Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
• Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
• Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
• Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
• The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
• Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement

I have copied all the whereas factors that are not tied to 1441 or have any thing to do with WMD.

Do you agree that this list is accurate and true?

No. If you want to make a point make it. Save your court room antics for an actual court room.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No. If you want to make a point make it.

I am making it. First I’d like to get you to agree on some facts. What is wrong with that. Are facts only required in court rooms?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

A general statement about how the "case for war" is made and a more specific sentence about how a certain requirement in regard to a specific task will be met.

Just to be clear - this you say Is a general statement about how the "case for war" is made:
The President does not determine the case for war, by himself.

And this you say is a specific sentence about how a certain requirement in regard to a specific task will be met. “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --“

In the specific sentence the phrase “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” which “to be” informs the reader that the determination to do the task of using military force in Iraq to remove the dictator was not determined on the date the AUMF was written and approved. The President is authorized by Congress to make the determination in the future. And in the future the President is expected to make the determination for the case for war by himself.

Is that true or is that false?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What did W mean when he said “Saddam Hussein has one last chance to disarm.”?

Correll I see it as W had made a determination that war is not inevitable and SH will remain the dictator of Iraq if “the WMD whereas factors” are resolved by Iraq being disarmed..

Is that a startenent of fact?

 

[Correll]

A general statement about how the "case for war" is made and a more specific sentence about how a certain requirement in regard to a specific task will be met.

Just to be clear - this you say Is a general statement about how the "case for war" is made:
The President does not determine the case for war, by himself.

And this you say is a specific sentence about how a certain requirement in regard to a specific task will be met. “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --“

In the specific sentence the phrase “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” which “to be” informs the reader that the determination to do the task of using military force in Iraq to remove the dictator was not determined on the date the AUMF was written and approved. The President is authorized by Congress to make the determination in the future. And in the future the President is expected to make the determination for the case for war by himself.

Is that true or is that false?

Sorry, your semantics game about policy from twenty years ago, is too boring for me to engage.

 

[Correll]

What did W mean when he said “Saddam Hussein has one last chance to disarm.”?

Correll I see it as W had made a determination that war is not inevitable and SH will remain the dictator of Iraq if “the WMD whereas factors” are resolved by Iraq being disarmed..

Is that a startenent of fact?

NOpe. It is a claim from a man about his beliefs. And it is worth noting that the man in question, has been shown to be very dishonest and very emotionally invested in the issue.


So, the claim is not credible, and even if it was, your beliefs are based on your incredibly biased and emotional and warped perceptions.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It is a claim from a man about his beliefs.

Actually the fact is when W says SH has been given one last chance to disarm it is one if the most publicized phrases used during the six months of the US and UK ramp up to war as it was based on the legal language enacted in the UNSC Resolution 1441:

8 NOVEMBER 2002

• SECURITY COUNCIL

​

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)​

08/11/2002​

Press Release SC/7564 8 NOVEMBER 2002​ SECURITY COUNCIL ​ SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)​ 08/11/2002​ Press Release SC/7564​

When W expressed his belief in what 1441 offered to SH on March 6 2003, what dies the phrase “

FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY” actually mean when you hear it.​

If you do not wish to answer I do understand why.

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002) | UN Press

08/11/2002Press ReleaseSC/7564 Security Council 4644th Meeting (AM) SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002) Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,

www.un.org

 

[Correll]

It is a claim from a man about his beliefs.

Actually the fact is when W says SH has been given one last chance to disarm it is one if the most publicized phrases used during the six months of the US and UK ramp up to war as it was based on the legal language enacted in the UNSC Resolution 1441:

8 NOVEMBER 2002

• SECURITY COUNCIL

​

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)​

08/11/2002​

Press Release SC/7564 8 NOVEMBER 2002​ SECURITY COUNCIL ​ SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)​ 08/11/2002​ Press Release SC/7564​

When W expressed his belief in what 1441 offered to SH on March 6 2003, what dies the phrase “

FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY” actually mean when you hear it.​

If you do not wish to answer I do understand why.

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002) | UN Press

08/11/2002Press ReleaseSC/7564 Security Council 4644th Meeting (AM) SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002) Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,

www.un.org

So, you dropped the "as I see it"?

Why are you making a point about how " publicized" it was, as though that makes it more relevant than the formal text of the authorization for war?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

So, you dropped the "as I see it"?

No I still want you to tell the readers on this forum what W meant when he in fact on the historical record publicly stated on March 6 2003 in this excerpt

​

Fourteen forty-one, the Security Council resolution passed unanimously last fall, said clearly that Saddam Hussein has one last chance to disarm. He hasn't disarmed. And so we're working with Security Council members to resolve this issue at the Security Council.​

​

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference​

​

Our demands are that Saddam Hussein disarm. We hope he does. We have worked with the international community to convince him to disarm. If he doesn't disarm, we'll disarm him.​

So, Correll what did the phrase “one last chance to disarm” that was “publicized” widely throughout the entire world when W stated it mean as you see it?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Sorry, your semantics game about policy from twenty years ago, is too boring for me to engage.

Ahhhhhh the “semantics@ ruse strikes again!!!!! Very timely indeed.

I don’t see semantics being an issue here on the matter of the phrase “to be determined” referring to a determination to be made in the future. Do you?

In the specific sentence the phrase “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” which “to be” informs the reader that the determination to do the task of using military force in Iraq to remove the dictator was not determined on the date the AUMF was written and approved. The President is authorized by Congress to make the determination in the future. And in the future the President is expected to make the determination for the case for war by himself.​

Is that true or is that false?

 

[Correll]

So, you dropped the "as I see it"?

No I still want you to tell the readers on this forum what W meant when he in fact on the historical record publicly stated on March 6 2003 in this excerpt

​

Fourteen forty-one, the Security Council resolution passed unanimously last fall, said clearly that Saddam Hussein has one last chance to disarm. He hasn't disarmed. And so we're working with Security Council members to resolve this issue at the Security Council.​

​

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference​

​

Our demands are that Saddam Hussein disarm. We hope he does. We have worked with the international community to convince him to disarm. If he doesn't disarm, we'll disarm him.​

So, Correll what did the phrase “one last chance to disarm” that was “publicized” widely throughout the entire world when W stated it mean as you see it?

You want my opinion on what Bush was thinking at that time, twenty years ago when he said those words?

IMO, he was going though the motions, because he did not think that Saddam would ever give up his WMDs.

He expected to see Saddam play games but never turn over the wmds, and thus that the invasion would happen in short order, Saddam would fall, a grateful Iraqi Nation would rise, as a democratic nation and ally of ours, in the War on Terror.

As it succeeded, with our support, it would become a beacon of a better way forward for the Muslim/Arab World(s), and log term, undermine Radical Islam as an idea.

 

[Correll]

Sorry, your semantics game about policy from twenty years ago, is too boring for me to engage.

Ahhhhhh the “semantics@ ruse strikes again!!!!! Very timely indeed.

I don’t see semantics being an issue here on the matter of the phrase “to be determined” referring to a determination to be made in the future. Do you?

In the specific sentence the phrase “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” which “to be” informs the reader that the determination to do the task of using military force in Iraq to remove the dictator was not determined on the date the AUMF was written and approved. The President is authorized by Congress to make the determination in the future. And in the future the President is expected to make the determination for the case for war by himself.​

Is that true or is that false?

When you start talking about questions such a what "to be" informs the reader of,


you are certainly engaging in semantics.


It is absurd for you to claim otherwise.


This is another example, not that any more are needed, that you are not a credible person.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

When you start talking about questions such a what "to be" informs the reader of,


you are certainly engaging in semantics.

How so?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You want my opinion on what Bush was thinking at that time, twenty years ago when he said those words?

No I’m just asking you politely what you think in your own words the phrase “final chance to disarm“ means. It’s not complicated. So why are you making it so?

 

[Correll]

You want my opinion on what Bush was thinking at that time, twenty years ago when he said those words?

No I’m just asking you politely what you think in your own words the phrase “final chance to disarm“ means. It’s not complicated. So why are you making it so?

What happened to the phrase "what he meant"? That is a question about his thoughts.


Which is an odd discussion to have, when I have already posted the listing of the formal argument for support for authorization of military force.


That you want to ignore the formal stated reasons, to focus on speculation about what a man neither of us have ever met, was thinking when he spoke twenty years ago, FROM TEXT of his words,


is you trying to avoid the Truth so that you can find shit to back up your faith based conclusions.