BF2S Forums Blaming President Bush for the Iraq War.

erm.. my understanding is that the President has the constitutional authority to deploy troops anywhere anytime for 30 days without seeking congressional approval.

Congress voted to fund the war thereby giving the go ahead.

I thought only Congress could declare war... could be wrong.

Kmarion wrote:

I thought only Congress could declare war... could be wrong.

You are correct, and Congress did not declare war.  Rather, they gave Bush a war powers resolution (like Bush Sr. got for the 1991 gulf war, which had oversight, was limited in scope, and well defined in respect to where it would happen) which means they forfeited their duty..which they can't do legally.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I thought only Congress could declare war... could be wrong.

You are correct, and Congress did not declare war.  Rather, they gave Bush a war powers resolution (like Bush Sr. got for the 1991 gulf war, which had oversight, was limited in scope, and well defined in respect to where it would happen) which means they forfeited their duty..which they can't do legally.

So when Clinton attacked in December of 1998 was he acting under the same resolution?

He was not performing an illegal act because he got UN support, unlike BUSH.  So international law was not violated, and the war powers granted to Clinton by his republican congress was lawful, and it had oversight, limitations, and other stipulations strictly adhered to by Clinton as he deployed troops and executed the war side-by-side with the UN.  Clinton also did not create a law letting him have sole power over the military (the military belongs to congress, not the president) and have a blank check.  Congress must approve all funds for such warfare.

Wait, are you talking about attacking inside Afghanistan?  That's different.  What I just wrote above is what applied for the kosovo conflict.  The missile strike in Afghanistan was simply invading airspace...which was authorized for the fly over in Pakistan but not authorized in Afghanistan, obviously.  Also, no troops were deployed in Afghanistan for that.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-10-06 11:57:53)

IRONCHEF wrote:

He was not performing an illegal act because he got UN support, unlike BUSH.  So international law was not violated, and the war powers granted to Clinton by his republican congress was lawful, and it had oversight, limitations, and other stipulations strictly adhered to by Clinton as he deployed troops and executed the war side-by-side with the UN.  Clinton also did not create a law letting him have sole power over the military (the military belongs to congress, not the president) and have a blank check.  Congress must approve all funds for such warfare.

Wait, are you talking about attacking inside Afghanistan?  That's different.  What I just wrote above is what applied for the kosovo conflict.  The missile strike in Afghanistan was simply invading airspace...which was authorized for the fly over in Pakistan but not authorized in Afghanistan, obviously.  Also, no troops were deployed in Afghanistan for that.

I was talking about Iraq.

    CNN/AllPolitics - Storypage, with TIME and Congressional Quarterly

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-10-06 12:06:01)

As for your post citing the speech of Clinton, that's all within UN jursidiction and it had congressional approval.  Is that what you wanted to ask?

S3v3N wrote:

I'd just to bring to light a few things about Declaring War and all you people that blame our current President for it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

Wikipedia wrote:

The War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148) limits the power of the President of the United States to wage war without the approval of Congress. The Resolution is also referred to as the War Powers Act of 1973. The Resolution is sometimes erroneously referred to as simply the War Powers Act, but that is an older law intended to define limits on trade with enemies during wartime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratio … y_Congress

Wikipedia wrote:

In 1973, following the withdrawal of most American troops from the Vietnam War, a debate emerged about the extent of presidential power in deploying troops without a declaration of war. A compromise in the debate was reached with the War Powers Resolution. This act clearly defined how many soldiers could be deployed by the President of the United States and for how long. It also required formal reports by the President to Congress regarding the status of such deployments, and limited the total amount of time that American forces could be employed without a formal declaration of war.

Although the constitutionality of the act has never been tested, it has been followed, most notably during the Grenada Conflict, the Panamanian Conflict, the Somalia Conflict, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War. In each case, the President asserted the constitutional authority to commit troops without the necessity of Congressional approval, but in each case the President received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Reso … ainst_Iraq

Wikipedia wrote:

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114, it passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

The Resolution cited several factors to justify action:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
Members of al-Qaida were "known to be in Iraq"
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations
Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism

Another little reminder:

1. Why aren't we invading Israel then.  They have been in constant non-compliance with the UN.
2.WMD's wer never found thus the assumption was wrong.  Since when does a nation go to war on "assumtions"
3.The US has used more WMD's than any other nation in the world combined!
4.Brutal repression of it's people, what about South Africa?  Should we invade tomorrow?
5.Hostility toward the US. AND?  So they fired on our jets in their country.MMMM
6.Al Queda and terrorist camps were never there, until we invaded.  Now they are there.
7.Members of Al Queda were known to be in Iraq.  They are in the US too.  Even visited GW in the Whitehouse.  This"fact" has been proven false and even GW admitted they were not there.
8.The congress voted on faulty information.  The information was culled and outright lies.

GATOR591957 wrote:

Another little reminder:

1. Why aren't we invading Israel then.  They have been in constant non-compliance with the UN.
2.WMD's wer never found thus the assumption was wrong.  Since when does a nation go to war on "assumtions"
3.The US has used more WMD's than any other nation in the world combined!
4.Brutal repression of it's people, what about South Africa?  Should we invade tomorrow?
5.Hostility toward the US. AND?  So they fired on our jets in their country.MMMM
6.Al Queda and terrorist camps were never there, until we invaded.  Now they are there.
7.Members of Al Queda were known to be in Iraq.  They are in the US too.  Even visited GW in the Whitehouse.  This"fact" has been proven false and even GW admitted they were not there.
8.The congress voted on faulty information.  The information was culled and outright lies.

Agreed!  Israel should have been nuked long ago.  There's at least 19 UN resolutions they're in violation of...i think that's more resoultions than the whole axis of evil has combined!

3. Yep, the US is actually the only country USING illegal WMDs right now..depleted uranium!  Andit's useage, which violates US Military doctrine (go figure), geneva convention law, and basic humanity.  People are getting deformed, babies are jacked up, death and carnage will last around those hot spots for generations!  Thanks Clinton and Bush for the DU contamination!

IRONCHEF wrote:

I don't get your point.  Are you bringing to light something that is well known to those who understand the constitution (without just wiki'ing it?) that Bush has illegally and unconsitutionally attacked two sovereign nations?

Because it is true.  Congress does not have the right to forfeit their ability to declare war (which forfeiture they did) by giving the president sole descretion to do so (which they illegally did).  Remember the uproar when the San Francisco Mayor decided to just let gays get married at City Hall and the whole country freaked out..and utlimately the CA state attorney general voided those certificates because they were not lawful?  Well the EXACT same lawlessness occured when Bush decided to wage war on Afghanistan and Iraq.  You simply cannot usurp power from Congress and you cannot invade countries without declaration of war (regardless of doing this in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraqx2, and any other unlawful warfare our country has conducted.  The only real bad part about this president is that he has seriously jacked up our constitution and truly created an empire...which will hopefully end this November.

You, sir, are an idiot.

Aenima_Eyes wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

I don't get your point.  Are you bringing to light something that is well known to those who understand the constitution (without just wiki'ing it?) that Bush has illegally and unconsitutionally attacked two sovereign nations?

Because it is true.  Congress does not have the right to forfeit their ability to declare war (which forfeiture they did) by giving the president sole descretion to do so (which they illegally did).  Remember the uproar when the San Francisco Mayor decided to just let gays get married at City Hall and the whole country freaked out..and utlimately the CA state attorney general voided those certificates because they were not lawful?  Well the EXACT same lawlessness occured when Bush decided to wage war on Afghanistan and Iraq.  You simply cannot usurp power from Congress and you cannot invade countries without declaration of war (regardless of doing this in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraqx2, and any other unlawful warfare our country has conducted.  The only real bad part about this president is that he has seriously jacked up our constitution and truly created an empire...which will hopefully end this November.

You, sir, are an idiot.

Great.  Thanks for contributing to a constructive debate.

Want to know another FACT?  I'll plagiarize this piece from Francis Boyle:

"..right after September 11 President Bush called these attacks an act of terrorism, which they were under the United States domestic law definition at that time. However, there is no generally accepted definition of an act of terrorism under international law[...]. Soon thereafter however and apparently after consultations with Secretary of State Powell, he proceeded to call these an act of war, ratcheting up the rhetoric and the legal and constitutional issues at stake here. They were not an act of war as traditionally defined. An act of war is a military attack by one state against another state. There is so far no evidence produced that the state of Afghanistan, at the time, either attacked the United States or authorized or approved such an attack. Indeed, just recently FBI Director Mueller and the deputy director of the CIA publically admitted that they have found no evidence in Afghanistan linked to the September 11 attacks. If you believe the government's account of what happened, which I think is highly questionable, 15 of these 19 people alleged to have committed these attacks were from Saudi Arabia and yet we went to war against Afghanistan. It does not really add up in my opinion.

But in any event this was not an act of war. Clearly these were acts of terrorism as defined by United States domestic law at the time, but not an act of war. Normally terrorism is dealt with as a matter of international and domestic law enforcement. Indeed there was a treaty directly on point at that time, the Montreal Sabotage Convention to which both the United States and Afghanistan were parties. It has an entire regime to deal with all issues in dispute here, including access to the International Court of Justice to resolve international disputes arising under the Treaty such as the extradition of Bin Laden. The Bush administration completely ignored this treaty, jettisoned it, set it aside, never even mentioned it. They paid no attention to this treaty or any of the other 12 international treaties dealing with acts of terrorism that could have been applied to handle this manner in a peaceful, lawful way."

So getting Congress to give the president his unfettered use and abuse of the us military was not even justified since this was terrorism and not war.  But hey, Bush regarding ANY laws is just not his "shoot from the hip" style, is it.