So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[Boss]

No you are lying, The threat of WMD and the illegal "non-presence" of UN inspectors from 1998 to 2002 was not just the centerpiece, it was the only justification for US military force being used against Iraq as worded in the 2002 AUMF.

And you are WRONG again. No surprise!

H.J.Res.114 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
[[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]

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'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

So as we can clearly see... matter of Congressional record... the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act certainly WAS used in the argument for the 2002 AUMF.

You sir, are the LIAR, not me.

 

[Boss]

Another one of your meaningless opinions and not s fact in any way shape or form. Only the UNSC majority and without a permanent member veto could declare Iraq in material breach of UN Res 1441. Blix never once said that Iraq was not complying...

Wow... deja vu! Seems like we've had this conversation before. Blix repeatedly indicated Saddam was harassing, organizing protests, raising objections and generally being difficult... from his first to his last report he addresses this. UN1441 called for Saddam to immediately and actively comply. So he WAS in violation of UN1441... no vote need be taken.

ALSO... The 2002 AUMF does not require Bush to obtain any permission from the UN or agree to allow the UN to decide when enough is enough. It explicitly gives Bush the authority to make that decision.

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.

 

[amrchaos]

In other words

What the Bush Whitehouse was saying to sell the Iraq War

versus

The true reason for going to war

were not exactly the same.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

H.J.Res.114 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
[[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]

So as we can clearly see... matter of Congressional record... the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act certainly WAS used in the argument for

You went from 'centerpiece' to 'used' / I said it swas not the 'centerpiece' I told you what was the 'centerpiece a ' . You cannot reply to what I told you, but you backed off your original claim because you know now it was not the 'centerpiece'. So you won't make that ridiculous claim anymore will you?

I don't recall UN inspectors going into Iraq to inspect SH's lack of democracy.


And look in the AUMF two paragraphs that actually authorize use of force. You will learn that democracy is no part of that section.

 

[Boss]

You went from 'centerpiece' to 'used' / I said it swas not the 'centerpiece' I told you what was the 'centerpiece a ' . You cannot reply to what I told you, but you backed off your original claim because you know now it was not the 'centerpiece'. So you won't make that ridiculous claim anymore will you?

No... here is what you said, asswipe:
No you are lying, The threat of WMD and the illegal "non-presence" of UN inspectors from 1998 to 2002 was not just the centerpiece, it was the only justification for US military force being used against Iraq as worded in the 2002 AUMF.

And before that, you said this:
They [Democrats] would not have given Bush the authority that they did if Bush claimed at the time that he would invade Iraq base upon the 1998 law.

As I have shown, the case for the war in Iraq included a rather lengthy list of justifications, including the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act. It's in the text of the 2002 AUMF voted for by both Clinton and Kerry.

Now that you have been totally exposed on two outright LIES, you want to hold a summit on the interpretation of "centerpiece" and my incorrect usage of the term... funny shit, really!

 

[Boss]

And look in the AUMF two paragraphs that actually authorize use of force. You will learn that democracy is no part of that section.

HA, more hilarity!

So.... If bills, acts and authorizations don't repeat standing US laws in each paragraph to reiterate they are current US laws... it means they don't really apply?

 

[Boss]

In other words

What the Bush Whitehouse was saying to sell the Iraq War

versus

The true reason for going to war

were not exactly the same.

I don't know that I totally agree. I think the White Hose mismanaged the whole thing from beginning to end, to be honest. I've already stated my feelings on this... Bush shouldn't have spent all the time with the UN, going through the diplomacy bullshit... he should have unleashed total hell on Saddam and taken his ass out before Chris Matthews could get out of the makeup chair. No need for all the drum-beating and saber-rattling... just go in and take care of business... IF Saddam is an "imminent threat" as Bush claimed, he has that authority under the Constitution.

As it unfolded, the Bush White House was totally unprepared to battle the left-wing anti-war radicals and they simply allowed them to control the dialogue throughout the war. The WMD thing was never actually articulated correctly, it was turned into "bush's lie" because some of our intelligence was flawed.. as is always the case with ALL intelligence. None of this was ever addressed... Bush kept his head down and remained focused on the war itself, choosing to ignore his critics and allow them to publicly crucify him for years without response or by simply shrugging them off. I know that he probably thought that was mature and responsible, but it was politically stupid beyond belief.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11815495

No... here is what you said, asswipe:
No you are lying, The threat of WMD and the illegal "non-presence" of UN inspectors from 1998 to 2002 was not just the centerpiece, it was the only justification for US military force being used against Iraq as worded in the 2002 AUMF.

It was the ONLY justification for the war. Read the AUMF section directly speaking to what military force could be used for. There were two parts to one justification; "protect the national security of the United States" and "Enforce Relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq." And 1441 became a very relevant Resolution with regard to Iraq!s WMD violations.

1441 did not say to make regime change in Iraq and put a U.S. 1998 law into effect there to create Demockarcy there under layers of bombs and at the end of a barrel of a gun.

So how was Bush enforcing UN Resolution 1441 by citing a 1998 U.S. Law?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11815495

Bush shouldn't have spent all the time with the UN, going through the diplomacy bullshit... he should have unleashed total hell on Saddam and taken his ass out before Chris Matthews could get out of the makeup

Why not just come out and admit that you are a nitwit? My god you are unbelievable!

Bush got the AUMF because he promised Congress members that he would go through the UN. Bush rejected Cheney's desires which matches your insane warmongering rant. Bush chose the UN and diplomacy because Blair could not play army with a Bush43 as his Parliament demanded it.

You didn't get 20 % of your grand coalition with you horrific murderous preference that Bush commit a war crime by attacking a soveriegn nation and killing its head of state when no imminent threat from Iraq was known in 2002.
,

 

[Boss]

Boss 11815495

No... here is what you said, asswipe:
No you are lying, The threat of WMD and the illegal "non-presence" of UN inspectors from 1998 to 2002 was not just the centerpiece, it was the only justification for US military force being used against Iraq as worded in the 2002 AUMF.

It was the ONLY justification for the war. Read the AuMF section directly speaking to what military force could be used for. There were two parts to one justification; "protect the national security of the United States" and "Enforce Relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq." And 1441 became a very relevant Resolution with regard to Iraq!s WMD violations.

1441 did not say to make regime change in Iraq and put a U.S. 1998 law into effect there I create Demockarcy there uder layers of bombs and at the end of a barrel of a gun.

So how was Bush enforcing UN Resolution 1441 by citing a 1998 U.S. Law?

Again... the 2002 AUMF lists nearly three pages of "whereas" comments which are the reasons for the measure. Ignoring those and pretending they are somehow supposed to be listed elsewhere in the authorization is a bit juvenile and very clownish. Apparently, you are ignorant as to how legislation is written or something. In any event, your lie about the 1998 ILA not being a part of the reasons has been exposed.

I've read the specific paragraph of authorization, I fucking posted it, moron. It gives Bush authority to use military force at his discretion. It does NOT affix any obligation on Bush to let the UN make the decision. It does not state that the UN must find Iraq in material violation... it says "as he determines."

Neither UN1441 or the 2002 AUMF needs to bless or endorse a current US law. I don't get your point here. No, it didn't "enact a 1998 law" the law was enacted in 1998 by Congress, idiot. It was ALREADY US law!

 

[Boss]

Bush got the AUMF because he promised Congress members that he would go through the UN.

And he DID go through the UN. They passed UN1441 which called for Saddam to comply immediately and unconditionally. He also stated that IF Saddam did not fully comply, there would be serious consequences and he wasn't joking. Saddam didn't comply and he got the consequence.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11815916

And he DID go through the UN. They passed UN1441 which called for Saddam to comply immediately and unconditionally. He also stated that IF Saddam did not fully comply, there would be serious consequences and he wasn't joking. Saddam didn't comply and he got the consequence.

Bush was overruled by the majority on the UNSC that Iraq did not comply. It is only your farcical and dishonest fairy tale that tells the story that Iraq did not comply. The majority wanted the inspections to continue just like the polled majority in the US.

Only the minority in all cases think that Iraq did not comply. Only nitwits, liars and warmongers think Iraq did not comply with 1441.

Nowhere in 1441 did it use the term cooperation on substance. Cooperation to any reasonable mind was immediate and unconditional.

And SH offered to let the CIA come in with the inspectors. There could be nothing more proactive than that.

 

[Boss]

Bush was overruled by the majority on the UNSC that Iraq did not comply. It is only your farcical and dishonest fairy tale that tells the story that Iraq did not comply. The majority wanted the inspections to continue just like the polled majority in the US.

Only the minority in all cases think that Iraq did not comply. Only nitwits, liars and warmongers think Iraq did not comply with 1441.

Nowhere in 1441 did it use the term cooperation on substance. Cooperation to any reasonable mind was immediate and unconditional.

And SH offered to let the CIA come in with the inspectors. There could be nothing more proactive than that.

Factually incorrect on several fronts. Bush was not "overruled" because the United Nations does not have the authority to overrule an American president. The only ones who can do that are Congress and they gave Bush authority to use military force at his discretion. Neither UN1441 or the AUMF required a majority of anyone to support anything and the president was not restricted to following polls.

Again... SH did NOT offer to let the CIA come with inspectors until invasion was imminent. It was fully intended to reset the clock so that SH could continue playing his game of cat and mouse, and everyone who had any knowledge of what was going on over there, knew this. He thought he could throw out this unbelievable offer and stave off an invasion. Had we taken the bait, it would have essentially rendered UN1441 obsolete and we would have started back at the old drawing board. The CIA was not obligated by UN resolution to go search and find WMDs. Saddam was required to turn over all documentation and account for all the WMDs we knew he had and do so immediately.. he did not.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

11815916

. He also stated that IF Saddam did not fully comply, there would be serious consequences and he wasn't joking. Saddam didn't comply and he got the consequence.

You say Bush stated "IF Saddam did not fully comply, there would be serious consequences and he wasn't joking. "

Comply with what? 1441 you say? Well then is Bush the King of the UN? Where did you find that Bush43 had the sole authority to determine that Iraq did not comply?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11816072

. SH did NOT offer to let the CIA come with inspectors until invasion was imminent.

So the invasion was imminent barely two weeks into the start of the 1441 inspections? That's about six weeks before Blix's first full report to the UNSC.

Are you saying Bush lied? Bush said on March 17 2003 that it was his final days of decision. On March 7 2003 Bush and Blair drafted a UNSC Resolution that would have allowed SH to stay in power. You say the invasion was imminent in December 2002. Bush says the invasion was not imminent until after March 7, 2003 during the final days of decision. Why should we believe someone so clumsy with the facts as you?

.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11816072

. SH did NOT offer to let the CIA come with inspectors until invasion was imminent.

SH didn't have to make that gesture but it was made to show the world that his country was wide open to inspection because he said Bush and Blair were lying about his possession of WMD.

And secondly everyone involved with the AUMF including Bush and HRC understood that it would take the threat of U.S. Military force to convince SH to allow the inspectors back in. And it worked. SH went beyond proactive cooperation and offered the CIA to come in also.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11816072

Factually incorrect on several fronts. Bush was not "overruled" because the United Nations does not have the authority to overrule an American president.

That is not my fact for you to call it incorrect. The UNSC cannot overrule a U.S. President. Of course not. I challenged your position that Bush43 had the authority to overrule the UNSC's majority determination that Iraq was in compliance with 1441 and wanted the inspections to continue. You are saying Bush had the authority to determinate Iraq did not comply and was able to over/rule the majority on the Council. That makes him King or dictator of the UNSC. You can't put him there can you? Your web of lies us being ripped to shreds.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Neither UN1441 or the AUMF required a majority of anyone to support anything and the president was not restricted to following polls.

Don't lump the two together and try to lie about 1441. Bush agreed to 1441 and it is clear that any UNSC Resolution requires a majority and no vetoes to become a law or to take action such as engaging in a war against one of its member states.

The AUMF did not require a majority and that is precisely why it worked to force SH to let the inspectors back in.

Presidents are not required to listen to the majority in the U.S. If military action was needed to react to an act of aggression toward the US.

But when starting a big invasion that was not in response to an active threat (a war of first resort) Bush43 should expect the nearly 6 out of 10 Americans in a clear majority who wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time, to damn Bush to hell when his war and occupation went to hell within a month of his declaration under the mission accomplished bsnner that major combat operations we're over.

Six in ten Americans were right to insist on continuing the inspections. Bush was wrong to force them to end

Those are the Americans that provide the younger men and women who make the sacrifices in war.

It figures you don't respect their opinion on going to war.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

First you argue that it is not Bush's war.

Boss 11802264

It was NOT Bush's War.

Then you argue that it was entirely Bush's war:

Boss 11815916

. He also stated that IF Saddam did not fully comply, there would be serious consequences and he wasn't joking.

That is "He [Bush43] also stated that IF Saddam did not fully comply [with UNSC 1441] there would be serious consequences and he wasn't joking.

There is no one other than Bush in your statement. We know the UNSC majority did not determine that Saddam did not fully comply with their Resolution so Bush is the American President deciding for America that Saddam Hussein was not complying with UNSC Reolution 1441. So he alone decided what America's serious consequences were going to be. And he decided alone for America that the consequences were going to be so serious that all the 1441 inspectors needed to leave Iraq immediately on March 17, 2003 or risk being bombed or caught in the crossfire of the coming battle.

Why do you argue one way and then a few days later argue the opposite?

It is entirely Bush's War because the October 2002 AUMF was passed one month before UNSC 1441 was passed by the UNSC with language that was accepted by Bush. And then Bush alone went around 1441 to start an invasion on his own.

 

[Boss]

11815916

. He also stated that IF Saddam did not fully comply, there would be serious consequences and he wasn't joking. Saddam didn't comply and he got the consequence.

You say Bush stated "IF Saddam did not fully comply, there would be serious consequences and he wasn't joking. "

Comply with what? 1441 you say? Well then is Bush the King of the UN? Where did you find that Bush43 had the sole authority to determine that Iraq did not comply?

1. UN1441
2. Yes
3. Nope.
4(a). The part in the Constitution which says the President is Commander in Chief of the US Military.
4(b). 2002 AUMF.

Any more stupid questions?