I will have to say that Kerry, Clinton, et al screwed up big time

[balanced]

when it comes to the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. The relevant part of the resolution is:

"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."

Why would anybody vote to authorize the use of the Armed Forces of the United States to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq", especially when the security council, itself, refused to authorize the use of force? What precedent does this set?

Kerry, Clinton, et al, had better make it clear, and quickly, that the U.S. is not the enforcer for security council resolutions, especially when the security council, itself, will not authorize the use of force. This will mean admitting to a mistake. But so what.

[mzmolly]

1. Can we see the resolution in it's entirety?

Link? Something?

[Scaramouche]

3. I guess Balanced is referring to this:

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1010res.htm better known as "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"

I don't get the point that they screwed up on expecting the Administration to get new and final Security Council Resolution as that seems to be in the text of this document.

[balanced]

6. The text is clear to me.

"(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 —... (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Unless one wants to argue that certain resolutions were "irrelevant," Kerry, Clinton, et al, gave Bush carte blanche ("as he determines to be necessary and appropriate...") to use the Armed Forces of the United States to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Kerry, Clinton, et al, had better disavow this wording, forthwith. We can't set a precedent that the U.S. military will enforce security council resolutions, even when the security council, itself, won't.

[balanced]

5. The web address is

http.//usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1010res.htm

[ET Awful]

2. The problem with your logic is that. . .

if the UN resolution does not specifically allow military action, then the President using military action can in NO way be construed as enforcing a UN resolution.

[sandnsea]

4. That was the POINT of the resolution

Authorize military action to so the UN would know we were serious and would enforce the weapons inspections. It also shows the supposed intentions of the U.S., that we only wanted to enforce those resolutions and get Iraq finally and fully disarmed. That's what the Democrats voted FOR.

Bush abused his power under that resolution as far as I'm concerned. He had no right to enforce those resolutions unilaterally and did not make a case that we needed to protect U.S. security by invading Iraq either.

Which John Kerry pretty well stated before the invasion and only added the caveat that Saddam had not fully complied, which even Hans Blix said at the time.

[balanced]

7. You are correct when you say,

"did not make a case that we needed to protect U.S. security by invading Iraq ..."

And you may be correct that the relevant resolutions, 678, 660, etc. were not violated or that the violations were so minor that war was not the answer.

But there is no question in my mind that Bush had authorization from Kerry, Clinton, et al, to use force at his discretion. This is a big boo-boo by Kerry, Clinton, et al, and should be corrected.

[sandnsea]

8. That's the CiC's JOB

They ALWAYS have discretion to deploy troops, even with a Declaration of War. It's in the JOB DESCRIPTION of the Presidency. The CiC deploys troops. The WWII Declaration of War was in Dec 1941. Normandy was in 1944. Would you expect FDR to do everything in his power to avoid that in the meantime? And to not lie about the necessity? Of course. Congress can't order the President to deploy troops. They can only authorize and he always has the discretion of when to do it. This IWR has been so totally misconstrued for Democratic and left wing political purposes that it is just nauseating. And even people like Kennedy and Byrd, they always kneejerk against war, no surprise that they voted no.

Voting to do something about Iraq was reasonable. Bush's rush to war, lies, failed diplomacy and the rest is where the fault lies.

[balanced]

9. You said,

"Voting to do something about Iraq was reasonable. Bush's rush to war, lies, failed diplomacy and the rest is where the fault lies."

No doubt this is true. Bush's rush was the fault. But Kerry, Clinton, et al, knew that Bush probably would go after Iraq. They gave him carte blanche.

Kerry, Clinton, et al, voted to authorize use of force to enforce a security council resolution. No doubt this is true also. Kerry, Clinton, et al, can read. Anyone who can read knows that Kerry, Clinton, et al, screwed up by voting to authorize use of force at the discretion of the president.

My point is that someone ought to make it clear that the Congress should not give any president carte blanche to enforce UN resolutions by using our military. This is a dangerous precedent.

[sandnsea]

10. On the UN, I agree

I've read legal arguments otherwise. But they make no sense to me, personally. The UN Charter specifically says THEY enforce resolutions. But voting to enforce UN resolutions in this IWR would seem to me to mean only if the UN was going to enforce them. And Bush's Declaration, or whatever the name of it was, cited gathering threat or some such. I don't think it referred to the UN resolutions. And I think that's why. And I'm still pissed about "Operation Iraqi Freedom". WTF is that? What are we doing worrying about the freedom of Iraqi's when we've been attacked? The whole thing sucked the big one, I know.

I kind of wonder if there isn't a certain level of some politicians thinking it's their patriotic duty not to disgrace the U.S. by openly stating we had no basis for war which would acknowledge that the whole thing is a legal war crime.

[Bill Todd]

12. You might want to read the preceding section of the resolution

which seems to make it even clearer that the 'diplomatic efforts' the failure of which could trigger unilateral U.S. action were the efforts to get the Security Council to take action itself. I.e., if those efforts failed, the U.S. would consider itself free to enforce 'all relevant UNSC resolutions' regardless of whether the UNSC approved.

Not, of course, that any such requirement for UNSC approval was implied in the section which you're choosing to interpret in a vacuum: the wording, and intent, is quite clear, even leaving aside the considerable discussion that preceded the Senate vote of exactly which UNSC resolutions were considered 'relevant' (if you need yet more evidence that the UNSC was not expected to be consulted in this area).

- bill

[sandnsea]

13. I disagree

I've read the thing 100 times, I disagree. I understand it to mean if all diplomatic efforts failed, the U.S. could enforce UN resolutions OR defend itself. Besides, the UN Charter is quite clear, THEY enforce their resolutions.

This is what Bush's Determination said:

"These are the determinations that reliance by the United States on diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to enforcement of United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq,"

The national security of the United States is in there for a reason. Much harder to argue with that than UN resolutions that only the UN has a right to enforce.

[Bill Todd]

15. The source of your disagreement is hardly clear

"I understand it to mean if all diplomatic efforts failed, the U.S. could enforce UN resolutions OR defend itself."

What part of your own words above do you fail to understand? "the U.S. could enforce UN resolutions..." says it all.

Furthermore, the Bush 'determination' that you quote also includes enforcement of U.N. resolutions as part of its rationale - despite the fact that the U.N. at that point was pretty clearly on record as not wanting any such 'enforcement'.

By the way, since the invasion was itself illegal under the U.N. charter (which is considerably stricter in the area of self-defense than the situation that existed), citing the charter as evidence that the resolution's wording must have implied U.N. approval seems a bit of a stretch. And the absence of the explicit wording that the Biden-Lugar alternative contained that required such U.N. approval before using UNSC resolutions as a reason to invade is also pertinent: that was one of the reasons Bush rejected Biden-Lugar because it 'tied his hands'.

You really don't have a leg to stand on here, save for your own wish to believe that Kerry and a regrettable number of his colleagues didn't screw up royally by supporting the IWR (while 22 other Senate Democrats plus 1 Independent were wise enough not to).

- bill

[balanced]

16. You said

"You really don't have a leg to stand on here, save for your own wish to believe that Kerry and a regrettable number of his colleagues didn't screw up royally by supporting the IWR (while 22 other Senate Democrats plus 1 Independent were wise enough not to)."

The nail has been hit on the head.

[sandnsea]

20. OR

defend itself. Which is why Bush had to make up all those stories about the U.S. being threatened by WMD.

Voting to force the UN to do something and get inspectors back in Iraq was reasonable. 23 Senate Democrats thought so and even some moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins thought so.

George Bush abused his power. Pure and simple.

[balanced]

23. Did Bush make up stories about violations of UN resolutions?

It is irrelevant whether Bush made up all of the stories about the WMD. Kerry, Clinton, et al, gave Bush carte blanche to go to war to "(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

[AP]

11. Devil's advocate:

In terms of future precedents, you have to remember that the UN is also a political body, and it may be the case that the UN in one year might issue resolutions which either have US interests in mind, or are made without regard to US interests, and then, later, issue resolutions which directly contradict US interests.

With Iraq, it's probably pretty clear which was which. But, in the future, you wouldn't want to tie the hands of the president, preventing him or her from looking after the best interests of Americans. Say there's a first resolution that is in America's interest, but is later contradicted by one that is harmful to America's interests?

What do you do then?

Although it isn't the case with Iraq, imagine a situation where the first resolution was good for the US, and the second one was specifically designed to give Europe or some other interest an advantage over America.

[balanced]

17. You said

"What do you do then?"

If there is a legitimate threat to the U.S., the president goes to congress. War is declared. The constitution is followed.

There was no threat to the U.S. from Iraq. The American people have gained nothing from this war, and we have lost a lot.

The thing I want to avoid in the future is that a president can get a congressional resolution passed (whether valid or not by international standards) to use the Armed Forces to enforce a security council resolution when the security council, itself, will not authorize force. This is madness. Kerry, Clinton, et al, should disavow their vote, forthwith. Say they made a mistake. Do the right thing.

[AP]

19. There are threats that come out of situations within the jurisdiction of

the security council which can only be dealt with actions that are short of war.

The bottom line is that the US can't hold itself hostage to the UN.

There might come a day when the legitimate, democratic, socially just aims of the US gov't are threatened by the coordinated interests of other nations, and you wouldn't want the th US bound to some precedent which binds our hands.

Again, I repeat, what if the first resolution was a good resolution, but later the UN decides that a weak, poor, US is in the the interest of other countries, and then they refuse to act.

I grant you that this is far from what happened with Iraq, but it is definitely not outside the realm of possibility.

What if the UN took advantage of a hated Republican gov't to weaken America knowing full well that later Democrats wouldn't behave that way, but also knowing that a weak America down the road was in the world's best interest?

Would you welcom that scenario?

I want a strong US that can control its destiny if it needs to, but doesn't wield that power to the detriment of other countries. The security council might have a different goal. What if they wanted a weak America so that Europe could be the most powerful government in the world?

[balanced]

22. If the U.S. is threatened, then it doesn't matter what the security

council does. Under circumstances where there is a legitimate threat to the security of the U.S., we defend ourselves no matter what the security council does or doesn't do.

However, I want to avoid the situation where the U.S. enforces security council resolutions where the security council, itself, will not authorize the use of force--unless the U.S. is legitimately threatened which of course was not the case in Iraq.

[AP]

29. The UN loses its nerve sometimes when there are important

democratic values at stake.

Algeria is one example.

Say, the security council issued a resolution about Algeria in 1959 but then refused to enforce it.

I would have been proud if a good Democratic president stepped forward and said that imperialism and fascism had no place in global politics and then took steps to enforce the resolution.

I know that this a very different scenario from the one we started talking about, but I still think it's important to recognize that the bottom line should be doing the right thing, and not blowing with whatever political winds are prevailing in the UN (but I also think it's crucial to promote the legitimacy of the UN and to try to use it as a force for good).

[balanced]

24. I'm not talking about U.S. interests. I am talking about U.S.

security. If there is a legitimate threat to the U.S., then we defend ourselves. Plain. Simple. Otherwise, we don't go around making war because UN resolutions, which the security council will not enforce, were not obeyed.

[AP]

30. We're not isolationists.

We should be a force for doing good. And liberal internationalism requires that powerful people step forward and behave responsibly sometimes. It's indirectly good for American security to do so.

I'm definitely not saying this was the case in Iraq, but I'm pretty sure that it's almost certain that a stituation will arise in the near future when that is the case. And I don't think Clinton or Kerry or anyone need to apologize for leading in a way that recognizes the possibility.

[David Dunham]

14. No. JK expected the UN weapons inspectors to be allowed to do their job

Bush did not allow that, but went to war instead.

[balanced]

18. I think that Bush used guile in his war "game." But you cannot

deny that the wording clearly gives Bush carte blanche to go to war with Iraq if one of the security council resolutions was not met. Giving Bush, or any president, such power is madness.

[sandnsea]

21. A Declaration of War

What does that do? Allows a President to go to war. Do we expect a President to lie to the entire world to do that? No. It's that simple.

[balanced]

26. Are you saying that no security council resolutions were

violated? Bush lied about WMD. But what lie did he tell regarding the security council resolutions? If Bush didn't lie about security council resolutions being violated, then he had carte blanche ("as he determines to be necessary and appropriate") "in order to ... (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Kerry, Clinton, et al, voted to give Bush the above power. They made a serious mistake. Admit it and move on after saying that they will never do such a thing again.

[sandnsea]

31. Tortured reasoning

Unless you really want to bottom line the security council resolutions, Hans Blix said Saddam wasn't fully cooperting in the disarmament process. Just like he hadn't fully cooperated for 12 years. Violation. Over and out.

But that's not relevant because the IWR wasn't just about the UN resolutions anyway. It was also about U.S. security, we always have a right to protect ourselves from threats, that's why Bush lied about the WMD.

This is really not all that complicated. There wasn't a thing in the world wrong with that vote. Unless you just didn't believe it was necessary to do anything about Iraq at all, which is an opinion.

[balanced]

32. Correct. It wasn't just about security council resolutions. But

it was about giving Bush the power to "(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Let me ask the question this way: Should the congress give any president carte blanche to enforce security council resolutions by military force when the security council, itself, will not authorize military force? I think this is a dangerous precedent--nothing short of madness.

[flaminbats]

25. Hello...I thought the primaries were over!

And what does Clinton have to do with this?

Kerry supported it and Bush asked for it, and now American soldiers and Iraqi people pay the price! You can demand this BS from politicians all you wish, which they shall gladly deliver, but what we now require is a solution to this disaster.

[balanced]

27. I mean senator Clinton.

[flaminbats]

28. I know..

so what? :eyes:

[sangh0]

33. It sets no precedent

You might want to look at Pres Clinton's actions in Kosovo, also without UN approval.