Groupthink Republican or Democrat trait? - derail from Mueller thread

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I found Wikipedia articles about this subject. Interesting.

 Protests against Barack Obama

There were protests, yes, but not against war. I did see a link to "Protests against the 2011 military intervention in Libya" as the only think that might be promising, so I clicked on it.

 Protests against the 2011 military intervention in Libya

Not as promising as I hoped. There were protests against the Libya campaign all across the world though, which I think you probably think is enough. There were protests in Brazil, for example, so the Democrats could stay home and do nothing. But there is a link to "US domestic reactions to the 2011 military intervention in Libya" as well as a section on the United states in this article itself. In this section I see protests by those outright stating to be Socialists or Marxists but not Democrats. Still, to get a further view I clicked the link to the more specific article.

 US domestic reactions to the 2011 military intervention in Libya

The anti-war side was Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Candice Miller and Jim Webb. The only organization listed as coming out against the war was the Libertarian Party.

The pro-war side was Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Nancy Pelosi.


Meanwhile, my own personal memory includes the Libertarian Party trying to keep the protests going in 2009 but achieving tiny crowds after the Democrats discovered that since Obama was no president they now loved war. Even after he "won" his Nobel Peace Prize for the epic accomplishment of not being named George Bush. I also recall the reaction in this very forum regarding the Libya campaign. When it was going well people here were cheering Hillary's "bold and decisive" action. When it went sour, people here were saying "the French did it, not us."

There is one exception to that. There is one hard-right conspiracy kook on this forum who has been ranting about Bengazi ever since then. I think the focus on Bengazi has diverted needed attention away from Libya as a whole, but then I'm not a seer and not privy to his hard-right views.

Sorry, Democrats weren't playing. They weren't anti-war before Libya, not at all. There was some temptation during Libya, but not enough. Then once Libya was over, anyone who brought it up was lumped in with the seer of the hard-right and told they were only concerned about the one town instead of the whole country. The Democrats were quick to forget about Libya.

Thanks for playing. It did die on that day.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

He exhausted all peaceful means?

This is what Hillary said:

I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible.

Bush succeeded in getting Resolution 1441 passed. At that time, the stated purpose of the 2002 AUMF was to allow the President to leverage the full force of the military against Hussein if he did not comply with the UN resolutions. In effect, taking the safety off. The fact that Iraq was not in compliance with UN resolutions was well established. That is exactly what 1441 reiterated. It was the UN giving Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in numerous previous resolutions (660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, and 1284). It was, in effect, the UN saying, this is your last warning; do as we say or we will let slip the dogs of war and it was passed unanimously by the Security council.

Put the cart back behind the horse. There were ten previous resolutions that Iraq was not in compliance with, most notably 687, which went back to the "Gulf War" in 1991 and stipulated that Iraq had to demilitarize, essentially, as punishment for their invasion of Kuwait. Which they agreed to, but evidently lied about.

Iraq then also agreed to the terms of 1441. Blix and his inspectors returned to Iraq and started looking for any non-compliance issues in late November.

From the perspective of Congress, Bush was fully in compliance with the UN conditions laid out in the AUMF and the implicit threat of force worked to get Iraq back in line and complying. Bush did NOT immediately use the military. He did exactly what was intended by the AUMF.

Then, Blix:

On 7 December 2002, Iraq filed its 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The five permanent members of the Security Council received unedited versions of the report, while an edited version was made available for other UN Member States. On 19 December, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's 7 December report (unedited version): "During the period 1991–1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the 7 December report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light.

Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there.

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441.[8][9][10] On 27 January 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Blix addressed the UN Security Council and stated "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance–not even today–of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[8] Blix went on to state that the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced "1,000 tonnes" of VX nerve agent—one of the most toxic ever developed.[8]

By mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. Blix's 7 March report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections."

At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".

And that's when the debates started (again) about any use of military force against Iraq:

At the Azores conference of 16 March, Tony Blair, George W. Bush, Spanish prime minister José María Aznar as well as Portuguese prime minister José Manuel Barroso who hosted the meeting, announced the imminent deadline of 17 March for complete Iraqi compliance, with statements such as "Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world". On the 17th, speeches by Bush and UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw explicitly declared the period of diplomacy to be over, as declared by Resolution 1441's prohibition on giving Iraq new opportunities for compliance, and that no further authorization from the UN would be sought before an invasion of Iraq (see 2003 invasion of Iraq). The USA and Britain, while admitting that such a resolution was diplomatically desirable, insisted that Iraq had now been given enough time (noting also the time since the first disarmament resolutions of 1991) to disarm or provide evidence thereof, and that war was legitimized by 1441 and previous UN resolutions. Non-permanent Security Council member Spain declared itself with the USA and Britain. Nevertheless, this position taken by the Bush administration and its supporters, has been and still is being disputed by numerous legal experts.

Bush pleads his case to the UN in September of 2002. A few days later (in October), Congress votes on granting the use of force as a cudgel for the UN, basically, though the wording is endlessly debated over and nitpicked (as all such language is). The UN passes Bush's (and Blair's) resolution (1441) and Iraq, now facing a new and final resolution that has the hair trigger of military force behind it, agrees. And then breaches (according to Blix).

NONE of this is me agreeing with anything Bush/Blair did. We know now--and I certainly suspected it then--that it was a contrived orchestration, but these are the actual facts in their proper chronology. Bush did not immediately use military force; he did in fact go to the UN and successfully got a new, tougher resolution passed; the threat evidently did, in fact, work as Iraq agreed to the terms and let Blix in; and it was only after it was determined--by Blix--that Iraq was once again fucking with the UN and not in full compliance that the US and UK (and Spain) broke with the other members of the Security council and said fuck this, he's doing it again, we're launching whether the rest of you agree with us or not.

Basically. It's worth noting at this point what Sanders said in his speech on October 9th where he clearly delineates what the issues are for him (emphasis mine):

Mr. Speaker, I do not think any Member of this body disagrees that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, a murderer, and a man who has started two wars. He is clearly someone who cannot be trusted or believed. The question, Mr. Speaker, is not whether we like Saddam Hussein or not. The question is whether he represents an imminent threat to the American people and whether a unilateral invasion of Iraq will do more harm than good.

Clear? Imminent threat and unilateral invasion are his deal breakers. He goes on to repeat these issues in the next paragraph and then again in the third (again, emphasis mine):

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the President feels, despite what our intelligence agencies are saying, that it is so important to pass a resolution of this magnitude this week and why it is necessary to go forward without the support of the United Nations and our major allies including those who are fighting side by side with us in the war on terrorism.

He is NOT objecting to invading; merely that he does not see why they need to vote this week and then asserts something that wasn't part of the bill and wasn't something Bush argued for (i.e., moving forward "without the support of the United Nations and our major allies").

He then derails himself talking about the economy and the poor before repeating, once again, that it is the idea of a unilateral invasion (i.e., US alone) that is the primary deal breaker for him:

Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq...

His conclusion? First he once again reiterates that his primary objection is a unilateral invasion and then he states what we should do, which is essentially exactly what Bush did:

If a unilateral American invasion of Iraq is not the best approach, what should we do? In my view, the U.S. must work with the United Nations to make certain within clearly defined timelines that the U.N. inspectors are allowed to do their jobs. These inspectors should undertake an unfettered search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and destroy them when found, pursuant to past U.N. resolutions. If Iraq resists inspection and elimination of stockpiled weapons, we should stand ready to assist the U.N. in forcing compliance.

That's pretty much exactly what Bush did, with the obvious exception at the end that Bush (and Blair)--as member states in the council--said Iraq was in breach and it was therefore time to force compliance and were going to do so with or without the approval of the other council members.

Iow, Sanders did NOT vote against "the war in Iraq" as it has since been apocryphally worded to make it seem as if Sanders was a saint. He voted against the US invading unilaterally--which we did not do--not against the idea of the US military being used to force Iraq to comply.

He didn’t.

He did.

No, he did not. He acted in tandem with the UK, primarily (and Spain).

The UN Security Council refused to authorize war, they never authorized war.

Technically, the other members of the council did not authorize it. The US and UK are also members of the council.

That was a violation of the UN Charter.

Yes, it was. But that has no bearing on what Clinton said (or Sanders) or the fact that Bush did, in fact, follow the terms both Clinton and Sanders stipulated he should (along with many others) in regard to Iraq.

It became a UN matter when Bush brought the matter to the UN.

Which is when they passed 1441.

It did not authorize an invasion.

Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in "material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687." Those terms:

The most important part of the resolution was the concluding paragraph 34, which required that "[the Security Council]...[d]ecides...to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area." This statement was widely interpreted as "obey or we will force you to by all means necessary." This text was used by the United States as a justification for the 1996 bombing of Iraq, 1998 bombing of Iraq, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, on the basis that Iraq refused to comply with various United Nations resolutions, in order to maintain peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.

It's bullshit, of course, but it's also precedent, which Bush (and Blair) used.

The UN explicitly refused to authorize an invasion.

Once again, technically incorrect. The US and the UK are part of the UN, more notably the Security Council (that determines such matters). They argued that breaching 1441 was the trigger, essentially, and that:

Resolution 1441's second ambiguity is even more significant. While the resolution makes clear that the Security Council must reconvene to discuss how to deal with Iraqi noncompliance, it does not make clear whether the council must pass another resolution at such a meeting, authorizing the use of force, or whether member states may simply act on their own.

This difference of opinion came into focus during the discussion following the adoption of Resolution 1441. At that time, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte said: "This resolution contains no 'hidden triggers' and no 'automaticity' with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a Member State, the matter will return to the council for discussion….[But] if the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce the relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security." The British ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, agreed.

Other members did not agree. So there was no unanimous or even majority agreement of the other council members, so Bush and Blair evidently took the position that they would act on behalf of the UN without the approval of the other council members.

Then when Bush invaded he did it in violation of the UN Charter and of international law.

Still being debated.

By who? Americans?

Cute, but irrelevant.

Once again, I am in FULL agreement that the invasion was never morally justified and that Bush and his entire cabinet (and Blair etal), are all war criminals. But that's a separate matter to what actually happened and in the sequence it all happened. Bush did exactly what Congress (yes, including Sanders) authorized/instructed/recommended/hoped he would do. It wasn't until the other members of the council disagreed with Bush/Blair's argument that because Iraq breached 1441 (and thereby all previous such resolutions) that it meant force was necessary.

And hindsight, of course, is pristine, but NONE of that has anything to do with what was going on in October of 2002 (nearly half a year prior to all that followed).

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

If the Democrats are so free of group-think, why did the Anti-war movement die on January 20, 2009?

Out of shear morbid curiousity, what are you talking about?

When Obama took office, the entire anti-war left disappeared at once. To the individual.

Ummm, not it did not. Obama was, in fact, widely criticized by the left (I believe unfairly) for numerous positions he took, most notably his use of drones (which always infuriated me, as that was a way to de-escalate from Bush's massively more destructive doctrine of invasion forces).

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

When Obama took office, the entire anti-war left disappeared at once. To the individual.

Ummm, not it did not. Obama was, in fact, widely criticized by the left (I believe unfairly) for numerous positions he took, most notably his use of drones (which always infuriated me, as that was a way to de-escalate from Bush's massively more destructive doctrine of invasion forces).

Also, Oceana was always at war with EastAsia.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

[Oh, I see. No one voted for the war.

Do you understand the difference between Congress declaring war and Congress authorizing the President to use military force if necessary?

God lord, this apologia is something ripped out of 1984, cooked up by the Ministry of Truth.

Stfu. I am not AGREEING with the immorality of it, you fucking moron. These are facts. This is how shit works in the real world.

She voted to authorize George W. Bush to conduct a war, but she did it to avoid a war.

In a sense, yes, that is what she did along with many others. The point of the AUMF was to use the threat of military force in order to scare the shit out of Hussein so that he would comply with the UN resolutions, which he agreed to do and then continued to breach that agreement.

IOW, precisely what Clinton (and Sanders) had argued Bush needed to do and he did and it worked. Hussein let Blix in and the inspections continued. It was only AFTER Blix reported that Iraq was still not in full compliance that Bush and Blair used that as an excuse to remove him.

ONCE AGAIN, for all the stupid fucks itt, I don't agree with the morality of any of this, but these are the facts and how they happened. Your profound ignorance on the matter is your own fucking cross to bear, not mine.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

When Obama took office, the entire anti-war left disappeared at once. To the individual.

Ummm, no it did not. Obama was, in fact, widely criticized by the left (I believe unfairly) for numerous positions he took, most notably his use of drones (which always infuriated me, as that was a way to de-escalate from Bush's massively more destructive doctrine of invasion forces).

Also, Oceana was always at war with EastAsia.

That's not an applicable analogy. The Bush doctrine (the notion of "pre-emptive self defense") is purely Orwellian, but for Obama to abandon that doctrine and fundamentally shift America's foreign policy away from using hundreds of thousands of invasion forces (killing, maiming and displacing uncountable millions) in countries that were not supporting Al Qaida, to one of using far more precise and surgical drone strikes (killing, maiming and displacing low thousands) in countries that we knew were in fact supporting Al Qaida is not an example of Orwellian revisionist history.

Again, I, personally agree that no one should ever kill anyone ever, but that's a different matter than changing from a doctrine of "shock and awe" mass extinction/devastation to one that seeks to target actual threats with as little collateral damage as possible.

Millions vs. thousands.

I think we ALL agree it would be super nifty great and keen if it were nobody killing anybody, but that's a different matter.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

There were protests, yes, but not against war.

That's because Obama made it a priority to de-escalate and fundamentally change our foreign policy. He oversaw the end of the Iraq occupation (begun under Bush) and had a harder time with Afghanistan (thanks to Bush), but finally was able to bring the majority of US troops home there, as well, leaving behind a couple thousand for training and special operations, which is s.o.p. for pretty much every single incursion in America's modern history.

I did see a link to "Protests against the 2011 military intervention in Libya" as the only think that might be promising, so I clicked on it.

Oh, I get it. Tu quoque and a dash of false equivalence. You don't give a fuck about Obama's foreign policy or what a profound change it represented from the Bush doctrine; you're just trying to point to Democrat voters not getting out in the streets to protest the same way they did against Bush. Have fun with that.

 

[untermensche]

This is what Hillary said:

I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible.

"If possible" means exhausting all peaceful means.

Bush ordered the invasion without any authorization for war from the UN. He just gave an arbitrary date pulled from his ass and attacked at will.

He said his god told him to do it.

There was no power willing to try to stop him.

The UN failed in it's mission to avoid aggressive war.

The crime Germans hung for at Nuremberg.

Once again, technically incorrect. The US and the UK are part of the UN, more notably the Security Council

They are members of a democratic body.

And their case was not believed.

Not surprising since everything Powell said was a lie.

They were not the dictators of the SC.

They were mere voting members of an international body with democratic functioning.

The UN did not authorize the cold blooded attack. The UN in fact voted against it.

The attack was in violation of the UN Charter and international law. It was a massive act of state terrorism.

 

[Elixir]

There were protests, yes, but not against war.

That's because Obama made it a priority to de-escalate and fundamentally change our foreign policy. He oversaw the end of the Iraq occupation (begun under Bush) and had a harder time with Afghanistan (thanks to Bush), but finally was able to bring the majority of US troops home there, as well, leaving behind a couple thousand for training and special operations, which is s.o.p. for pretty much every single incursion in America's modern history.

I did see a link to "Protests against the 2011 military intervention in Libya" as the only think that might be promising, so I clicked on it.

Oh, I get it. Tu quoque and a dash of false equivalence. You don't give a fuck about Obama's foreign policy or what a profound change it represented from the Bush doctrine; you're just trying to point to Democrat voters not getting out in the streets to protest the same way they did against Bush. Have fun with that.

Keep in mind that when Jason says "they all disappeared, to a person", he refers to the view from where he sits. We see enough of his views to understand something about what he is and is not exposed to, and you should be able to extrapolate from there.... I'm pretty sure that no anti-war liberals protesting Obama's bellicosity would have made it into his field of vision.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

you're just trying to point to Democrat voters not getting out in the streets to protest the same way they did against Bush.

If by "same way" you mean "getting up and going out at all."

For some reason, partisans are so reluctant to criticize the in-group that they will abandon principle at the drop of a hat.

There wasn't a profound change under Obama. There was only a (slight) shift away from killing brown people in person to killing brown people by drones.

I'm sure the families of the brown people are joyous that their loved ones were killed by nice Obama using a drone instead of mean Bush using a tank. So much nicer, so much cleaner, so much just as fucking dead.

 

[J842P]

Do you understand the difference between Congress declaring war and Congress authorizing the President to use military force if necessary?

Yes, I understand the difference: purely symbolic and meaningless to the issue of whether or not you are voting for a war. If you want to maintain that this matters, then there was no war. Is that what you maintain?

Stfu. I am not AGREEING with the immorality of it, you fucking moron. These are facts. This is how shit works in the real world.

She voted to authorize George W. Bush to conduct a war, but she did it to avoid a war.

In a sense, yes, that is what she did along with many others. The point of the AUMF was to use the threat of military force in order to scare the shit out of Hussein so that he would comply with the UN resolutions, which he agreed to do and then continued to breach that agreement.

If you really believe that, then Hillary Clinton and all those who voted that way are so completely inept and naive that they should be wholly disqualified from any position of power.

IOW, precisely what Clinton (and Sanders) had argued Bush needed to do and he did and it worked. Hussein let Blix in and the inspections continued. It was only AFTER Blix reported that Iraq was still not in full compliance that Bush and Blair used that as an excuse to remove him.

ONCE AGAIN, for all the stupid fucks itt, I don't agree with the morality of any of this, but these are the facts and how they happened. Your profound ignorance on the matter is your own fucking cross to bear, not mine.

Of for fuck's sake, I'm not ignorant of any of these facts. I'm just not a god damn boot-licker who accepts these narratives uncritically, which you seem desperate to swallow up hook, line, and sinker.

The distinction you are making is completely irrelevant. A vote for the authorization to use military force is equivalent to "voting for the war". This is a ridiculous apologia for the Iraq Resolution. Everyone knew it was a vote for war. Even Hillary Clinton.

If you were a Trump supporter right now, you'd be saying that "Well, Trump didn't mean that Mexico would literally pay for the Wall".

Your alternative facts don't change this. What you are doing is called spin, and I gotta say, the depths you are going to spin this are absurd. A vote for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution was a vote for war. Hillary may be stupid and may have thought that this wasn't actually a vote for war (I don't think she is stupid), but it was a vote for the war nonetheless. In the best case, she inadvertently voted for the war. Because we all know, Hillary Clinton is not savvy policy-wise .


Why are you even bringing up Sanders? What relevance could Sanders possibly have here? And if, as you say this was Sander's position, then why didn't Sanders vote for the resolution? Why didn't Nancy Pelosi vote for the resolution? Is it because they actually were for the war, so, by voting against it, they thought they would prevent the war?.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

"If possible" means exhausting all peaceful means.

If you say so.

Bush ordered the invasion without any authorization for war from the UN.

Technically inaccurate, but why let facts stop you now?

He just gave an arbitrary date pulled from his ass and attacked at will.

Again, inaccurate but you go girl!

He said his god told him to do it.

Yep.

There was no power willing to try to stop him.

Debatable and contradictory to your other one liners, as there were numerous powers in the UN that could have tried to stop him, but did not. At least not in the sense of a "power willing." There were many objections and condemnations, but no other countries threatened something like "an attack against Iraq is an attack against Russia and we will send thousands of troops..." etc.

The UN failed in it's mission to avoid aggressive war.

Hyperbolic, but yep.

The crime Germans hung for at Nuremberg.

One of the crimes, yep.

Once again, technically incorrect. The US and the UK are part of the UN, more notably the Security Council

They are members of a democratic body.

Yep.

And their case was not believed.

Inaccurate. The issue that tipped the scale and justified invasion for Bush and Blair was Blix reporting that Iraq was still not in full compliance with UN resolutions. The "case" you are referring to was Bush's attempt to justify invading immediately, which was rejected and as a result, Bush stood down. Again, it wasn't until Blix's report that Bush/Blair had what they felt was sufficient cause to act.

Not surprising since everything Powell said was a lie.

Yep.

They were not the dictators of the SC.

Accurate.

They were mere voting members of an international body with democratic functioning.

Yep.

The UN did not authorize the cold blooded attack. The UN in fact voted against it.

Yep.

The Attack was in violation of the UN Charter and international law.

Charter, yes. International law still undecided (in an official capacity).

It was a massive act of state terrorism.

Agreed.

Done? Let me know when you want to deal with the fact that in spite of ALL of that, Bush still first did everything Clinton and Sanders and everybody else in Congress, pretty much, insisted he needed to do. He did in fact work with the UN; he did in fact use the threat of force as a means to get Hussein to comply, which Hussein did; he got the inspections reinstated; he even did not, ultimately, invade unilaterally; etc.,etc.,etc.

Again, these are the facts. This is how it actually happened. Everything was working exactly as Clinton and Sanders could have hoped for until Blix came back with his report that Iraq was still not in full compliance. And why was that? Because Hussein didn't want his enemies to know that he was castrated, that's why and rightfully so, but Bush and Blair took that misstep (probably knowing or hoping all along that Hussein would be so stupid or arrogant or both to call their bluff) as the justification they needed.

Personally, I think they should all be hanging from piano wire in the Hague for it.

WTF has that got to do with what was being debated almost half a year earlier, however, before ANY of that unfolded the way it unfolded? Clinton said she was trusting Bush and Bush upheld that trust repeatedly in the months that followed and precisely in line with her (and Sanders') concerns and succeeded in forcing Hussein to comply with the UN.

Then Hussein fucked himself. And Blix reported it. And Bush and Blair acted on this change of events.

Had Hussein simply been in full compliance, that would have been the end of it. Bush would have likely tried to gin up some other excuse at some other point, of course, but the fact is that had Blix reported back that Iraq was in full compliance and the crisis was over, then Bush would have had no further recourse but to stand everything down. It would have been Bush holding his dick on TV, rather than Hussein coming out of a spider hole.

My guess is that Bush was counting on Hussein's ego (and probably some covert intell that Cheney or Rumsfeld had ordered) and knew more or less going in to the UN initially (to get 1441 passed) that Hussein would never fully comply. Hell, even without all of that, it was a safe bet he wouldn't considering he hadn't complied for over a decade already.

But so far as the AUMF is concerned, it did exactly what it was supposed to do. It forced Hussein to comply with the UN and admit inspectors. That was it's purpose and it succeeded.

That is was discovered that Hussein was still not in compliance with a decade old UN resolution (and thus in breach of 1441 as well) is not on Congress. That Bush and Blair acted without consent from other council members is likewise not on Congress and certainly not on Clinton. And even then Bush gave Hussein a final warning; he gave him two days to get the fuck out of dodge "or else the U.S. and its allies will invade Iraq and depose his regime."

That, btw, is when Australia and Denmark joined in as well.

So, ONCE AGAIN, I don't approve of anything Bush/Blair (etal) did, but NONE of it is on Clinton.

 

[untermensche]

You like to use a lot of words to say very little.

The Powell lies did not tip any scale.

The UN voted to not attack.

GW Bush went anyway totally on his and his god's volition.

If there were some power greater than the US he and Cheney and Rumsfeld would all hang.

And Clinton was nothing but a spectator with one vote on the whole matter.

Her self serving twisted defense is too absurd to believe.

I voted to allow Bush to decide because I was against an invasion.

Not many people buy that shit.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yes, I understand the difference

Clearly you do not.

purely symbolic and meaningless to the issue of whether or not you are voting for a war.

She wasn't. No one was. They were voting to allow Bush to use the threat of military force in order to get him to comply with UN resolutions, which is exactly what happened.

Of for fuck's sake, I'm not ignorant of any of these facts.

Your comments prove otherwise.

I'm just not a god damn boot-licker who accepts these narratives uncritically

Nor am I. Precisely the opposite in fact as everything I have meticulously written and sourced proves.

A vote for the authorization to use military force is equivalent to "voting for the war".

That's literally a false equivalence. The purpose of the resolution was to authorize force to use as a threat to get Iraq to comply with the UN, which they did. It worked. Blix went in and found Iraq was still not in compliance and then Bush used that as his justification.

Again, these are the facts, not "spin" or "apologia" or any other childish ad hominem attacks.

Why are you even bringing up Sanders? What relevance could Sanders possibly have here?

Because he and Clinton said the same things as their threshold for voting "yes." Sanders voted "no" NOT because he opposed the use of force to get Iraq to comply with UN resolutions; quite the opposite, as he made crystal clear in his closing paragraph. He voted no because of two reasons only: he did not feel Bush had made the case for imminent threat (i.e., no reason to vote this week) and he did not want the US to act unilaterally. Bush did not act unilaterally.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You like to use a lot of words to say very little.

Irony.

The Powell lies did not tip any scale.

I didn't say they did. I said the Blix report is what Bush/Blair used as justification.

The UN voted to not attack.

Yep.

GW Bush went anyway totally on his

False. Blair was with him as well (and Spain, and then Australia and Denmark joined in).

and his god's volition.

Yep.

If there were some power greater than the US he and Cheney and Rumsfeld would all hang.

Yep.

And Clinton was nothing but a spectator

Yep.

with one vote on the whole matter.

Yep.

Her self serving twisted defense is too absurd to believe.

"Her" defense? What are you talking about? Do you mean what I am arguing?

I voted to allow Bush to decide because I was against an invasion.

No, again, she said she trusted the President to use the threat of force to get Iraq to comply with UN resolutions. Which is exactly what Bush did.

You can pretend all you want that this isn't an objective fact, but that won't change anything. Bush did exactly what Congress wanted him to do; exactly what the stated purpose of the AUMF was intended to do. And then, after Blix went in to Iraq and reported back that Hussein still was not in full compliance, that was the justification Bush/Blair used to invade.

These are the facts. Don't shoot the messenger due to your ignorance.

Not many people buy that shit.

Many people voted for Trump and kept Hee Haw on the air for over twenty years. I can't help how fucking ignorant people are. I can only tell them what the facts are.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Since none of you fuckheads knows how to use google, apparently, here are some relevant articles from 2002 that shows exactly what was being argued and by whom.

From CNN we have this:

A White House draft of a congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq was met with a decidedly mixed reaction Thursday on Capitol Hill.

Many rank-and-file Democrats questioned what they see as President Bush's call for a unilateral approach toward Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"I think clearly there's been movement that we wanted [at the U.N.]," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois. "Now the president sends to Congress this challenge, which basically says, 'Ignore the United Nations, the United States is going to do this alone.' I think it's the wrong way to go."

Sen. Carl Levin, who chairs the Armed Services Committee, said, "I'd like the focus of the resolution to be on urging the United Nations to take action, setting a deadline, an ultimatum to have the very strong inspections, to force inspections and to authorize member nations to use military force to implement that resolution calling for the very strong inspections and disarmament."
...
Both Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle and House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt said they will work to build bipartisan support for a resolution, and many members predicted one will pass in the next few weeks by a wide margin.

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction," said Gephardt, who called the draft resolution "an important first step."

However, Daschle cautioned: "That shouldn't be the last word from Congress, and it shouldn't be the last overture from the administration. We need to find ways to work together."
...
Even U.S. lawmakers who support authorization of use of force said they do not like the last line of the draft resolution, which says that "force" should be used against "the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region."

That line, say some members of Congress, is too vague and could allow the president to use force in other Mideast nations beyond Iraq.

"That is probably a bit ambitious," said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Indiana. "Would this authorize an invasion of Iran? Or how about Syria? They're in the region. I think we ought to stay focused here, and that is staying focused on Iraq."

The language could lead to a "miniature Armageddon" or "potential World War III," claimed Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings, who said he will write an alternative resolution with fellow liberal Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, that would place more pre-conditions on Bush before he could use force in Iraq.

"Nothing in our intelligence suggests that Iraq is ready to attack Washington or Fort Lauderdale, " Hastings, of Florida, said.

So the issue of force--and how much (or how little) to grant--and what limitations and conditions were all being openly and heatedly discussed before the vote.

And this bit (after the debate and revised resolution was passed) from CBS is of note:

The bipartisan agreement gives the president most of the powers he asked for, allowing him to act without going through the United Nations. But in a concession to Democratic concerns, it encourages him to exhaust all diplomatic means first and requires he report to Congress every 60 days if he does take action.

House Democrats urged the president to work closely with the U.N. before making a decision to go it alone against Iraq. "Completely bypassing the U.N. would set a dangerous precedent that would undoubtedly be used by other countries in the future to our and the world's detriment," said Gephardt.

While concerns remained about the dangers of going to war against Iraq without a strong international coalition, Thursday's vote showed stronger support for the president than his father received 11 years ago on another Iraq resolution. The House voted then 250-183 to endorse using American troops to drive Iraq from Kuwait.

"It is only when the Iraqi dictator is certain of our willingness to wage war if necessary that peace becomes possible," said Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif.

Mr. Bush has stressed he has made no decision about using military force against Iraq. It could take months, once that decision is made, for the military to prepare for an all-out strike.

With Congress behind him, Mr. Bush will press his case with the United Nations Security Council that it must approve a tough new resolution holding Iraq to unfettered inspections and disarmament and promising force if Iraq does not comply.

Which, again, he did. Iraq, meanwhile responded initially in the affirmative:

In a letter handed over to the United Nations on Monday, Iraq said it would allow the return of U.N. weapons inspectors "without conditions" to "remove any doubts Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction."
...
The timing of Iraq's letter coincides with a major push by the Bush administration to draft a new, tougher U.N. resolution ordering weapons inspectors back into Iraq on a tight deadline -- and threatening the use of military force if Saddam does not comply.

Bush outlined the administration's stance in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday, and Secretary of State Colin Powell has been meeting with U.N. Security Council members in the hopes of building a consensus to support one or more tougher resolutions.
...
A senior State Department official called the letter "another claim on another piece of paper" and a "tactical move" to avoid strong Security Council action.

"We are confident Iraq won't succeed in that regard," this official said. He said that in meetings with a variety of foreign ministers, Powell made clear the United States intends to go forward with a Security Council resolution that finds Iraq in violation of prior Security Council resolutions.

"It's up to the Council to say what compliance means," the official said. "It's not for Iraq to pick which aspect of which resolutions it might comply with."
...
White House spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated that concern, saying the U.N. Security Council needs to draw up a "new, effective U.N. Security Council resolution that will actually deal with the threat Saddam Hussein poses to the Iraqi people, to the region, and to the world."

"This is not a matter of inspections. It is about disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime's compliance with all other Security Council resolutions," McClellan said in a written statement. "It is time for the Security Council to act."

Others in the administration were more dismissive of Iraq's latest pledge, with one senior official saying: "There will be no negotiating. The United Nations will act to lay out the requirements, or we will, but he (Saddam) gets no input."
...
Annan said President Bush's speech last Thursday helped spur the international community in getting Iraq to comply with U.N. resolutions.

"A lot has happened in this building since Thursday," Annan said in announcing the news. "I believe the president's speech galvanized the international community, as most of you heard almost every speaker in the General Assembly urge Iraq to accept the return of the inspectors."
...
Among the flurry of discussions Monday, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw met with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov. Russia is one of the permanent members of the Security Council with the power to veto any resolution, and it has opposed a unilateral U.S. military response.

"We both agreed about the need for inspectors to be readmitted without condition and without restriction, and we also completely agreed about the serious consequences which would be faced by Iraq if they fail to comply," Straw said after the 50-minute meeting with Ivanov.

Straw said there was "wide consensus" following Bush's speech "about the need for resolute action to be taken against Iraq -- hopefully by peaceful means -- to ensure their compliance with the will of the international community."

Before the news of the Iraqi decision, Powell said he was "encouraged" by the progress being made on the diplomatic front. He said he believed that there is "a great deal of pressure being put on Iraq to come into compliance."

"We will see whether or not Iraq understands the seriousness of the position it is in and whether it will respond to this direction from the Security Council," Powell said.

And then Blix went in and insert the same shit I've already pointed out numerous times here.

 

[untermensche]

I didn't say they did. I said the Blix report is what Bush/Blair used as justification.

It did not justify anything.

The whole crisis was manufactured.

No new threat existed from Iraq that had not existed for years.

Nothing had changed in Iraq.

GW Bush went anyway totally on his

False. Blair was with him as well (and Spain, and then Australia and Denmark joined in).

Bush ordered the invasion. Nobody else. Those lesser parties merely followed. They did not order US forces to attack.

No, again, she said she trusted the President to use the threat of force to get Iraq to comply with UN resolutions. Which is exactly what Bush did.

No he did not.

No UN resolution ever authorized any nation to enforce UN matters on their own volition or with whatever henchmen they could coerce or bribe.

The invasion was never authorized by the UN.

In fact it was expressly forbidden by the UN Charter.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It did not justify anything.

I said it was what Bush and Blair used to justify their invasion.

The whole crisis was manufactured.

Well, certainly carefully cultivated. But don't forget, everyone--including the UN Security Council--considered Hussein a dangerous threat. Hence all of the resolutions against Iraq and the insistence that he prove disarmament to begin with.

No new threat existed from Iraq that had not existed for years.

Nothing had changed in Iraq.

Yeah, you're STILL not comprehending the fact that I am not defending their actions. It's not a binary proposition.

No, again, she said she trusted the President to use the threat of force to get Iraq to comply with UN resolutions. Which is exactly what Bush did.

No he did not.

Yes he did. Once again, the AUMF was intended to give Bush the ability to threaten Iraq into compliance with the numerous previous UN resolutions. This is the language. First from the preamble:

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 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, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) 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 Resolutions 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';

Then the meat:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

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 applicable to 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.

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.

And this is what Bush said in his address to the nation a week before that resolution was voted on (i.e., a week before Clinton made her vote):

Later this week the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands.

Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations and all nations that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something.

Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq that his only chance — his only choice — is full compliance. And the time remaining for that choice is limited.

The above was on October 8 of 2002. A week later, both houses of Congress, having debated and amended and revised and argued over the exact verbiage you see above--and all of its attendant emphasis on the UN Security Council resolutions--then passed the AUMF. Bush then went to the UN with resolution 1441. Iraq agreed to abide by 1441 and Blix and his inspectors were allowed into Iraq.

The threat of the AUMF worked exactly as intended and stated by Clinton and others (including Sanders). Iraq appeared to capitulate and allowed inspectors in to ensure Iraq was in full compliance with UN resolutions.

Five months later--after it was determined by Blix that Hussein was still not in full compliance with UN resolutions--Bush and Blair requested another UN Security Council meeting, where they evidently intended to present what they called the "eighteenth resolution" (and others called the "second resolution" in reference to 1441)--which was basically to be the argument for using force--but France pre-empted it:

At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".

Before the meeting took place, French president Jacques Chirac declared on 10 March that France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war. This caused open displays of dismay by the U.S. and British governments. The drive by Britain for unanimity and a "second resolution" was effectively abandoned at that point.

In the leadup to the meeting, it became apparent that a majority of UNSC members would oppose any resolution leading to war. As a result, no such resolution was put to the Council.

That's when they broke rank with the UN Security Council and gave Hussein yet another "final" warning; two days to get out of Iraq or he would be forcibly removed.

No UN resolution ever authorized any nation to enforce UN matters on their own volition or with whatever henchmen they could coerce or bribe.

The invasion was never authorized by the UN.

In fact it was expressly forbidden by the UN Charter.

Yep. And they did it anyway. Which has fuck-all to do with Clinton. Bush did everything she and Congress insisted he do. He used the threat to force Iraq to comply with UN resolutions and let inspectors in to verify. They did and found Iraq had not been in compliance with UN resolutions.

That triggered a different set of circumstances and even then Bush still didn't act unilaterally. He and Blair initiated a new resolution for the Security Council to meet and debate over and other member states pre-emptively said, in effect, if it's about using force we will veto without seeing it.

So B&B broke with the other members and acted without their approval.

If someone is doing exactly what they said they were going to do--accomplishing exactly the goals tasked to them month after month after month--and then half a year later it is discovered that another party (in this case Iraq) was not doing what they had promised to do, then you're talking about a completely different ballgame.

It doesn't excuse anything Bush and Blair etal did. But it is just gross ignorance and rank stupidity to put all of that blame on Clinton.

 

[untermensche]

You're wrong about any UN Resolutions allowing the US and Britain and a few other terrorist nations to attack Iraq at their choosing without a specific UN resolution stating all diplomatic means had been exhausted. And the only legitimate attack was a UN attack. Not a US-British attack.

And you're wrong that Clinton didn't give Bush something.

She said she trusted the terrorist. She gave him cover.

It showed incredibly poor judgement.

She was used like a stooge.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You're wrong

For the last fucking time, I have never argued that any UN Resolutions "allowed" the US and Britain to attack Iraq at their choosing and without a specific UN resolution.

What the living fuck is wrong with you?

And you're wrong that Clinton didn't give Bush something.

When did I argue anything at all about Clinton giving Bush something?

She said she trusted the terrorist. She gave him cover.

It showed incredibly poor judgement.

To not foresee that Bush was a "terrorist"? Got it.

She was used like a stooge.

Yes, well, hindsight is mighty sharp from the cheap seats and your personal assessment aside, the fact remains that Bush did everything the AUMF intended. It wasn't until Blix's report stating that Hussein--another such terrorist--was still not in compliance with UN Resolutions that the game changed.

Hussein could have easily stopped the terrorist Bush in his tracks by simply complying with UN resolutions or even leaving Iraq, for that matter. Two terrorists whipped their dicks out. One ended up in a spider hole and then hanging by a rope. The other still awaits whatever his fate will be.

None of which had anything to do with Clinton, or anyone else that signed the AUMF for that matter. There were plenty of "experts" saying that the President didn't need anything at all from Congress (or the UN) to attack Iraq if he wanted to and telling him from day one just to go it alone.