Iraq War Vote

Tehon 14271532
Authorizing military force was unnecessary.


There is no way that you could know that for certain in October 2002. But the point is the inspections did become highly successful with Iraq's full cooperation as never before, and Senator Clinton had an expectation that Bush would enforce all UNSC Resolutions by peaceful means if the inspections were working. They were working. You claim they were working in October 2002.

Yet you call Senator Clinton a liar for saying on March 3 2003 that Bush should let the inspectors finish their work because you think she really wanted Bush to kick the inspectors out and start a war to find WMD.

What!s amazing is that you think you are making sense.
 
Tehon 14271532
Levin's amendment would have allowed that process to play out and slowed down a president who was hell bent on war.

It was not seen at the time as 'allowing' the preliminary discussions about reviving inspections 'play out'. Bush had been 'hell bent' for war through August 2002 and then did a 180 to being for a peaceful resolution through the UN. No one knew for certain that the UNSC would act and that Saddam Hussein would respond to a passive message from the U.S. Congress of just 'allowing' the proceed okay out.

Bush had other means to launch an invasion into Iraq, Blair and Bush had increased bombing Iraq military targets all summer in 2002. It was a judgment call whether something like the Kevin Amendment which the White House was not likely to accept or the Redolution with The UN language inserted and was passed and accepted by the White House was the best way to get Saddam in compliance with international law without war and slow Bush down.

Bush got the very peaceful inspections he said he wanted. You will never know if the Levin amendment would have driven legitimate peaceful inspections as well. Bush did not respect the inspections he sought and obtained. Yet you attack Clinton as if she enabled or hoped that Bush was lying about his preference to resolve the WMD threat from Iraq peacefully.

Bush is the ONLY culprit fully responsible for deciding to end peaceful inspections. You should focus on the one who lied to Hillary and proved it in March 2003 rather than the judgment call she honestly made in October 2002.
 
Tehon 14271532
Hillary voted for war, and voted against allowing UN inspections to take place, which Levin's amendment would have required

Hillary did not vote against allowing inspections to take place. That is absurd. She voted in support of stronger peaceful inspections through the UNSC and not for Bush to use military force to start a war unless he was enforcing all UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq.

Bush did not use military force to enforce 1441. That is not what Senator Clinton voted for. She voted for Bush to enforce 1441 if he got it and Saddam Hussein if complied with it. Bush did not comply with it.
 
Last edited:
Tehon 14271532

Hillary voted for war, and voted against allowing UN inspections to take place, which Levin's amendment would have required



It looks like Tehon had to run from all the truth that he has been presented.
 
It looks like Tehon had to run from all the truth that he has been presented.
Truth doesn't need an explanation.The title of the legislation in question is The Authorization for Use of Military Force. There were no conditions placed upon that authorization. Hillary abdicated her constitutional duty to declare war when she voted to leave that decision to the discretion of the president. Your explanations have no merit, you haven't addressed this yet.

Can you please cite EXACT VERBATIM terms (not just the paraphrased interpretations) of
A. the protocol to be followed if the resolutions on inspections were not complied with
B. what EXACT VERBATIM conditions, process or policy did Clinton and Congressional members sign in support of?

Also, is there a written PROTOCOL through the UN on how to proceed at this point,
if aggression was pursued that violated the agreed process. Then what are petitioners supposed to do to redress that violation?
 
Tehon 14327897
There were no conditions placed upon that authorization.

Using force in order to enforce all UNSC Resolutions against Iraq is a condition. It is explicitly in the AUMF as one of two conditions.

You have been saying Bush acted under that condition and was in fact enforcing all UNSC Resolutions when he invaded Iraq against the UNSC majority opinion to continue peaceful inspections. But you must realize that your argument that Bush enforced 1441 is absurd so now you are back to saying there are no conditions in the AUMF. That is also absurd.

You own two absurd arguments. You are fooling no one but yourself.

And the title is not in dispute. I've told you a million times it seems that the AUMF was an authorization to use military force based upon two conditions. You just can't tell the truth about those two conditions.

Do you think the authoruzation to use military force has no language following the title?
 
Last edited:
You have been saying Bush acted under that condition and was in fact enforcing all UNSC Resolutions when he invaded Iraq against the UNSC majority opinion to continue peaceful inspections. But you must realize that your argument that Bush enforced 1441 is absurd so now you are back to saying there are no conditions in the AUMF. That is also absurd.
I have stated from the outset that there were no conditions put in place that would prevent the president from using military force.
If there were then you would have answered these questions long ago.

Can you please cite EXACT VERBATIM terms (not just the paraphrased interpretations) of
A. the protocol to be followed if the resolutions on inspections were not complied with
B. what EXACT VERBATIM conditions, process or policy did Clinton and Congressional members sign in support of?

Also, is there a written PROTOCOL through the UN on how to proceed at this point,
if aggression was pursued that violated the agreed process. Then what are petitioners supposed to do to redress that violation?

I also have stated from the outset that Bush acted within the authority granted to him by congress. He was granted authority so that he could militarily enforce relevant UN resolutions. He did. Congress gave up their constitutional duty to define how to enforce the resolutions when they ceded that decision to Bush. You trying to explain, after the fact, what Hillary's intent was is rendered meaningless by her vote to cede to the president her authority to dictate how the US was to proceed regarding the use of force against Iraq.
 
Tehon 14329724
He was granted authority so that he could militarily enforce relevant UN resolutions. He did.

Yes, Bush was granted military authority to enforce relevant UN resolutions. That was one of the two conditions specified in the AUMF. . You know of it yet you deny there were conditions stipulated. Your argument is absurd.

Now will you answer if 1441 was a relevant UNSC Resolution? Why should I go into the language of 1441 if you are holding onto the absurd position that Bush was enforcing 1441 when you know darn well that he was not enforcing it. He unilaterally terminated the peaceful disarming of Iraq through 1441's explicit language to disarm Iraq peacefully.

He threatened to bomb the inspectors if they did not leave as the majority on the Security Council stated unequivocally that it was the position of the Council to continue inspections because they were working.

Why can't you explain away your absurd argument on this topic. There is no rationale, consistency or basis for what you have written.

How was Bush 'enforcing' by doing what the UNSC opposed? Please explain.

Why do you state one hand that there are no conditions in the AUMF and then go on to make the absurd argument that Bush was enforcing one of those conditions?
 
Last edited:
Yes, Bush was granted military authority to enforce relevant UN resolutions. That was one of the two conditions specified in the AUMF. . You know of it yet you deny there were conditions stipulated. Your argument is absurd.
Then it should be easy for you to prove.

Can you please cite EXACT VERBATIM terms (not just the paraphrased interpretations) of
A. the protocol to be followed if the resolutions on inspections were not complied with
B. what EXACT VERBATIM conditions, process or policy did Clinton and Congressional members sign in support of?

Also, is there a written PROTOCOL through the UN on how to proceed at this point,
if aggression was pursued that violated the agreed process. Then what are petitioners supposed to do to redress that violation?

Now will you answer if 1441 was a relevant UNSC Resolution? Why should I go into the language of 1441 if you are holding onto the absurd position that Bush was enforcing 1441 when you know darn well that he was not enforcing it. He unilaterally terminated the peaceful disarming of Iraq through 1441's explicit language to disarm Iraq peacefully.

He threatened to bomb the inspectors if they did not leave as the majority on the Security Council stated unequivocally that it was the position of the Council to continue inspections because they were working.

Why can't you explain away your absurd argument on this topic. There is no rationale, consistency or basis for what you have written.

How was Bush 'enforcing' by doing what the UNSC opposed? Please explain.

Why do you state one hand that there are no conditions in the AUMF and then go on to make the absurd argument that Bush was enforcing one of those conditions?
Do you understand what the word enforce means? If you can't answer the above questions that Emily asked then how can you possibly suggest that the means of enforcement were anything other than by military force as prescribed by the AUMF?
 
Tehon 14337130
Do you understand what the word enforce means? If you can't answer the above questions that Emily asked then how can you possibly suggest that the means of enforcement were anything other than by military force as prescribed by the AUMF?

Does a cop enforce your speeding violation by shooting you? There are non-violent means of enforcement you know. That is enforcement by peaceful means as 1441 provided.

The language that Emily asked for is an easy Google search.

I realize that posting it won't matter to you since you just admitted that you think enforcement must involve violent use of force.

That is just plain nutty.

The UNSC was enforcing 1441 because Saddam Hussein was cooperating with the 1441 inspection regime.

There was no way to interpret Bush's use of military force against Iraq as 'enforcing' UNSC 1441.
 
Last edited:
Tehon 14337130
Do you understand what the word enforce means? If you can't answer the above questions that Emily asked then how can you possibly suggest that the means of enforcement were anything other than by military force as prescribed by the AUMF?

Does a cop enforce your speeding violation by shooting you? There are non-violent means of enforcement you know. That is enforcement by peaceful means as 1441 provided.

The language that Emily asked for is an easy Google search.

I realize that posting it won't matter to you since you just admitted that you think enforcement must involve violent use of force.

That is just plain nutty.

The UNSC was enforcing 1441 because Saddam Hussein was cooperating with the 1441 inspection regime.

There was no way to interpret Bush's use of military force against Iraq as 'enforcing' UNSC 1441.
Lol, LEOs operate under a code of conduct. The code of conduct stipulates that he must enforce the law courteously and appropriately and never with excessive force or violence. If a LEO breaks the public trust there is a system in place to deal with it. The LEO knows that if he shoots someone for speeding that there will be repercussions because he was given the code of conduct and he signed on to it before he took the job. Now stop lying and admit that no such "code of conduct" was issued as part of the AUMF. The method of enforcement was left to the discretion of the president and he was authorized to use deadly force. End of story.
 
Now stop lying and admit that no such "code of conduct" was issued as part of the AUMF.

I never lie and not as you say. I did not say that a code of conduct was part of the AUMF.

My point was about your ignorance regarding the term 'enforce'.

The method of enforcement was not left to the discretion of the president. Read the AUMF again. The president was given the discretion to determine if military force was needed and how much "in order to enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq."

The method that both Bush and the unanimous vote of the 15 member UNSC chose and agreed upon was Resolution 1441. The method of 'enforcement' 1441 approved was UN inspections.

Look it up in 1441. In order to use military force Res 1441 required the Council to reconvene in order to decide what's to be done if Iraq did not cooperate under the terms of 1441. The UNSC AND both Chief inspectors never saw the need to reconvene the Council to determine if military force was required. They never ever ever came close to deciding to use military force.

Bush was the rogue cop. Bush enforced Bush Law - not UNSC law.

Therefore Bush was not in compliance with the AUMF stated condition that he use military force in order to 'enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq'.

You are arguing the absurdity that 1441 was not relevant to Iraq's WMD compliance as well as your other absurdities that 1441 authorized the use of military force; and that one that there were no conditions in the AUMF but you also argue again and again that Bush was actually enforcing the condition that you argue does not exist.

It's a fact that you cannot deny that the UNSC was in the very successful act of enforcing all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq under UNSC 1441, peacefully and without the use of military force when Bush decided to terminate the inspections and use military force to enforce his own version of international law.

It's amazing that you believe Bush's version when Bush himself tells you that he and his coalition acted on their own to enforce the world's demands - not the UNSC demands.!

.
Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power.

For the last four and a half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that council's longstanding demands. Yet some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced that they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it.

Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world.

The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours. In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq so that disarmament can proceed peacefully.

He has thus far refused.

All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing.

For their own safety, all foreign nationals, including journalists and inspectors, should leave Iraq immediately.

Bush March 17 2003 speech to the nation: "For the last four and a half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that council's longstanding demands."

That was of enforcing peacefully within the UNSC. Bush mutters on:

"Yet some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced that they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq."

That means there was no resolution by the UNSC that authorized the use of military force to disarm Iraq. And rightfully so they would have been if a resolution ever was presented for a vote. Bush never presented one because he knew he would lose.

So Bush tells you right here that he no longer is going to work 'within' the UNSC and peaceful inspections in order enforce what he calls "the world's demands"

"Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world.

The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours."

You do know what 'however' means don't you?

Do you believe Bush had the authority to take over the UNSC when he tells you "The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities"

Or do you believe Bush acted outside and against the UNSC in order to (as Bush put it) to enforce the just demands of the world?

Was what Bush did 'Just'?

Senator Clinton agreed with the UNSC majority that inspections must continue and remain peaceful.

Bush is a liar when he says he wanted to peacefully work within or through the UNSC. Deal with it. Can the absurdity that Bush was in fact enforcing 1441 through the UNSC.
 
Last edited:
Do you believe Bush had the authority to take over the UNSC when he tells you "The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities"

Or do you believe Bush acted outside and against the UNSC in order to (as Bush put it) to enforce the just demands of the world?
What I believe is irrelevant to what transpired. I believed Bush would take us to war and my belief was justified.
Bush acted within the authority granted to him by congress, it is an undeniable fact.
This is what Hillary believed, she signed her name to it, she granted the authority.

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';
 
Tehon 14370370
Do you believe Bush had the authority to take over the UNSC when he tells you "The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities"

Or do you believe Bush acted outside and against the UNSC in order to (as Bush put it) to enforce the just demands of the world?
What I believe is irrelevant to what transpired. I believed Bush would take us to war and my belief was justified.
Bush acted within the authority granted to him by congress, it is an undeniable fact.
This is what Hillary believed, she signed her name to it, she granted the authority.


"I believed Bush would take us to war and my belief was justified."

You believed that how? More absurdity on your part that you knew for certain in October 2002 that UN inspections would be resumed and working and that Bush would terminate the inspections and invade Iraq in March 2003.

Tell us all about your clairvoyance abilities.

Of course you believe your beliefs are justified. But you are absurd in the ways you arrive at them. Words and facts mean nothing to you.
 
Now stop lying and admit that no such "code of conduct" was issued as part of the AUMF.

I never lie and not as you say. I did not say that a code of conduct was part of the AUMF.

My point was about your ignorance regarding the term 'enforce'.

The method of enforcement was not left to the discretion of the president. Read the AUMF again. The president was given the discretion to determine if military force was needed and how much "in order to enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq."

The method that both Bush and the unanimous vote of the 15 member UNSC was Resolution 1441. The method of 'enforcement' 1441 approved was UN inspections.

Look it up in 1441. In order to use military force Res 1441 required the Council to reconvene in order to decide what's to be done if Iraq did not cooperate under the terms of 1441. The UNSC AND both Chief inspectors never saw the need to reconvene the Council to determine if military force was required. They never ever ever came close to deciding to use military force.

Bush was the rogue cop. Bush enforced Bush Law - not UNSC law.

Therefore Bush was not in compliance with the AUMF stated condition that he use military force to 'enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq'.

You are arguing the absurdity that 1441 was not relevant to Iraq's WMD compliance as well as your other absurdities that 1441 authorized the use of military force; and that one that there were no conditions in the AUMF but you also argue again and again that Bush was actually enforcing the condition that you argue does not exist.

It's a fact that you cannot deny that the UNSC was in the very successful act of enforcing all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq under UNSC 1441, peacefully and without the use of military force when Bush decided to terminate the inspections and use military force to enforce his own version of international law.

It's amazing that you believe Bush's version when Bush himself tells you that he acted on his own.
 
Tehon 14370370
Do you believe Bush had the authority to take over the UNSC when he tells you "The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities"

Or do you believe Bush acted outside and against the UNSC in order to (as Bush put it) to enforce the just demands of the world?
What I believe is irrelevant to what transpired. I believed Bush would take us to war and my belief was justified.
Bush acted within the authority granted to him by congress, it is an undeniable fact.
This is what Hillary believed, she signed her name to it, she granted the authority.


"I believed Bush would take us to war and my belief was justified."

You believed that how? More absurdity on your part that you knew for certain in October 2002 that UN inspections would be resumed and working and that Bush would terminate the inspections and invade Iraq in March 2003.

Tell us all about your clairvoyance abilities.

Of course you believe your beliefs are justified. But you are absurd in the ways you arrive at them. Words and facts mean nothing to you.
You ignore the facts provided. Bush's intentions were clear.
 
Now stop lying and admit that no such "code of conduct" was issued as part of the AUMF.

I never lie and not as you say. I did not say that a code of conduct was part of the AUMF.

My point was about your ignorance regarding the term 'enforce'.

The method of enforcement was not left to the discretion of the president. Read the AUMF again. The president was given the discretion to determine if military force was needed and how much "in order to enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq."

The method that both Bush and the unanimous vote of the 15 member UNSC was Resolution 1441. The method of 'enforcement' 1441 approved was UN inspections.

Look it up in 1441. In order to use military force Res 1441 required the Council to reconvene in order to decide what's to be done if Iraq did not cooperate under the terms of 1441. The UNSC AND both Chief inspectors never saw the need to reconvene the Council to determine if military force was required. They never ever ever came close to deciding to use military force.

Bush was the rogue cop. Bush enforced Bush Law - not UNSC law.

Therefore Bush was not in compliance with the AUMF stated condition that he use military force to 'enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq'.

You are arguing the absurdity that 1441 was not relevant to Iraq's WMD compliance as well as your other absurdities that 1441 authorized the use of military force; and that one that there were no conditions in the AUMF but you also argue again and again that Bush was actually enforcing the condition that you argue does not exist.

It's a fact that you cannot deny that the UNSC was in the very successful act of enforcing all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq under UNSC 1441, peacefully and without the use of military force when Bush decided to terminate the inspections and use military force to enforce his own version of international law.

It's amazing that you believe Bush's version when Bush himself tells you that he acted on his own.
Bush acted on the authority granted by Congress.
 
Tehon 14363518
The method of enforcement was left to the discretion of the president and he was authorized to use deadly force. End of story.

I never said he was not. You leave out what the AUMF authorized him to use deadly military force "in order to enforce all relevant UNSC with regard to Iraq." That includes 1441 which you claim he was enforcing it. You claim something that Bush himself tells you in the moment of deciding war that he was not enforcing 1441. He said he was enforcing World Demands. Whatever the hell that is. But it definitely was not enforcing UNSC demands or Resolutions.

It is absurd to claim that Bush was enforcing 1441 when Bush tells us explicitly that he was not.
 
Last edited:
Bush acted on the authority granted by Congress.

Sure Bush acted but it was not per the language of conditions imposed in it. Because he is a liar. Nice of you to defend Bush by telling us he was not a liar.
 
The method of enforcement was left to the discretion of the president and he was authorized to use deadly force. End of story.

I never said he was not. You leave out what the AUMF authorized him to use deadly military force "in order to enforce all relevant UNSC with regard to Iraq." That includes 1441 which you claim he was enforcing it. You claim something that Bush himself tells you in the moment of deciding war that he was not enforcing 1441. He said he was enforcing World Demands. Whatever the hell that is. But it definitely was not enforcing UNSC demands or Resolutions.
Oh for crying out loud, 1441 did not exist when the AUMF was passed. Furthermore it solidified Congress's authorization by recalling all the past resolutions. Of course Bush should have gone back to the UN for approval but that was made unnecessary by the AUMF which protected him here in the US. Congress gave him the authority and he acted on it. And yes, well informed people knew he would and called on Congress to deny him the AUMF. I was one.
 

Forum List

Back
Top