Let's call Obama on his baloney

[MagsDem]

Here is the language from the AUMF on Iraq. Can we stop pretending that we voted for war when what we voted for was enforcement of the UN weapons inspectors? Bush and Bush alone is responsible for disregarding the clear language here. The Bush regime said over and over, when this was being debated, that it was give teeth to the inspections process. He never called it a war resolution, and in fact assured the world it was not that. He lied. He's a liar. Stop blaming everyone but Bush, and stop letting Obama get away with this bullshit.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September

[ingac70]

1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq

OMG, lies were right in the text of the bill! Iraq was no threat.

[MagsDem]

3. Look, they lied to you.....

You don't think they also lied to the congress? The congress was asked to give teeth to the demand to let the inspectors back in. How were they to know he would attack Iraq even after the resolution resulted in the inspectors being allowed back in? Were they supposed to risk our security on it based on the blatant lies the Bush administration told?

Again, stop blaming anyone but Bush and his cronies. It's pure baloney. And political opportunism to the nth degree on the part of Obama.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. Gosh, i wonder why an overwhelming Dem majority in the house and 23 Dem Sentors voted against

such an innocent little request by that sneaky ol' george. I mean how did they have enough smarts not to fall for the trick like Hill did?

Are there that many Dems who are just plain smarter than her? Or is it that they actually hate America?

[MagsDem]

11. Obama wasn't one of them though

And he has shown no leadership at all, in fact he has been just another obstacle, to getting us out. So stop pretending he is so holier than thou. He isn't.

[John Q. Citizen]

20. No, Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time. But he was smart enough to speak out against the

war.

I don't think that makes him holy. Just smarter than Hill.

[ErnestoG]

7. Nice facile detraction. Now how about speaking to HILLARY'S part in this tragic nonsense?

Let's stay focused here. SHE is running, but Bush. We know that prick is a war criminal. I just don't want someone from my party who enabled him, to get a shot at the White House.

[Levgreee]

2. That is a clear 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;

[MagsDem]

4. Based on humongous lies told by Bushco

It's real easy to shoot off his mouth when the responsibility was not his. I have no respect for him and his harping on this issue, particularly since he spent Kerry's entire campaign excusing it on Kerry's behalf.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

5. You are/were for the IWR?

:shrug:

[MagsDem]

12. No, but I don't blame dems for it....

I blame Bush because that is where the blame lies. And funny enough, Obama spent the entire 2004 campaign for Kerry excusing him for it. Should we believe he was sincere then, or now?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

15. I blame a lot of Dems for allowing us to go to war. This is what they should have said...

"I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

Ring any bells?

[MagsDem]

16. They didn't 'allow' us to go to war

We weren't in the majority, remember? Every one of them could have voted against it and it wouldn't have changed a damn thing.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

18. This is pandering. You attack Barack on the IWR -- one of the few with the fortitude

to stand up and speak for the people -- and think you are strengthening Hillary's position? You are delusional.

[MagsDem]

24. Really, was he speaking for the people when he voted against.....

The Kerry - Fiengold bill in 2006 that would have set a timetable for withdrawal? If he had shown any leadership on this issue since he was elected a mere 3 yrs ago I could give him this one. But he is simply using it as a political football. The minute he got into the senate, the minute it actually mattered what the fuck he thought, he did what all politicians do -- covered his butt to help his future political ambitions. It's the same damn reason he skipped the Iran vote, and the same reason he voted "present" so many times in the Illnois state senate.

It's this pretense that he is some kind of leader on the Iraq war situation that is really grating. It's just pure BS.

[milkyway]

8. You are completely misreading and misrepresenting the very text you are quoting.

How can you say the vote was for enforcement of the UN weapons inspectors? The clear language that you quote says:

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;

It can't be much clearer than that. Congress gave bush the legal authority to use the military as he determines necessary to defend the U.S. from the threat posed by Iraq. That's why it was called AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002.

Your other text in bold says he can also use the military as he sees necessary to enforce UN resolutions regarding Iraq. Thus, Bush can use the military for either reason 1, reason 2, or both.

Your last text in bold merely says that within 48 hours of using the military (to invade, of course), bush must make available his determination that diplomacy will not adequately protect the U.S. from Iraq or lead to enforcement of UN resolutions. There are no legal requirements, or hurdles, that bush must make in this undefined determination. He merely has to report to the Congress that he invaded because diplomacy wasn't working thoroughly enough.

Congress abdicated its constitutional responsibility to wage war and instead left it up to bush and cheney to go ahead and do what they thought was best. What a surprise, they went ahead and had the war Cheney and PNAC had been begging for since 1998.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

[GoldieAZ49]

21. Thank you!!!!!!

That is exactly why it was called a "Blank Check"

But lets make that call the OP asked for:

Magsdem is full of baloney not Obama

[Indenturedebtor]

9. Um....

Care to read your post again Mags?

Or maybe smell it, lick it, press it against your forehead.

Smells, tastes, and feels like an authorization for war. Maybe it is one ;)

[Barack_America]

10. It was an authorization for Bush to go to war with Iraq.

Plain and simple. If it were anything but, he wouldn't have been able to do so, according to our constitution.

He may have promised them diplomacy and inspections, but that's not what they were voting for. In fact, that's what they voted AGAINST when they defeated the Levin Amendment. The IWR was authorization of force.

[ErnestoG]

14. Be honest.

At that time, with the nation still smarting after 9/11, with the Bush cabal ratcheting up the war drums, with their clear ease in lying as badly as was required to achieve their aims, are you actually telling me that no one in the Congress was smart enough to see that a vote for IWR was a virtual assurance of a war?

Give me a humongous break here.

[Barack_America]

17. Did you mean to reply to me?

Cause I already agree with you. lol

[donheld]

13. His baloney has a first name, it's

O.S.C.A.R. :banghead: :D

[Milo_Bloom]

19. It was a vote for war on its face.

The language is very clear and it set all the pre-requisites for war in its language.

[cloudythescribbler]

22. Obama's explanation in the debate (eg how it was seen in newspaper headlines) was quite adequate

This selectively bolded text of the resolution and its accompanying comment COMPLETELY miss the point.

Bottom line -- it IS indeed HRC and others with similar claims (eg Kerry) who is prevaricating here. After all, MANY conditions that would need to be fulfilled were voted on, and failed; what remained was seen generally, and accurately, as a blank check that Bush had made clear he was going to use to go to war. What HISTORICAL reason is there to believe that Bush was going to or was reasonably expected to impose restrictive conditions on himself that were voted down in Congress?

Remember also that Bush had started this whole farce with a speech announcing that he was going to pursue, MILITARILY, "regime change" in Iraq. The notion that this wasn't clear at the time is a TOTAL fiction. I was out in the streets during the period leading up to the WAR RESOLUTION and no one had any illusions, including at the time of his speech at the UN (Sept 2002) that Bush intended to go to war.

I would also note that pointing out that 29 out of 50 Democrats voted for the resolution, and many of these later complained that the VAGUE language of restriction did not hold Bush back were ALL BEING DISINGENUOUS!!!!!

[Egnever]

23. It was quite clear

The navy was already headed there full steam ahead when they voted on this thing. The twisting these guys are doing on this thing relies entirely on Americans short term memories.

[WilliamPitt]

25. Let's not

and say we did...and ask McCain instead.

Hm?