The Bush Administration and this war

[Navy Pride]

Thanks. Of course, that is not a vote for war with Iraq.

The vote gave the president the authority to invade Iraq if he saw fit.......

 

[Iriemon]

The vote gave the president the authority to invade Iraq if he saw fit.......

OK, although it was supposed to be a little more than just if he "saw fit." If Ivan had stated that Kerry voted to give Bush authority to use military force in Iraq instead of saying that Kerry voted for the war, there would have been no need to correct him.

 

[ProudAmerican]

OK, although it was supposed to be a little more than just if he "saw fit." If Ivan had stated that Kerry voted to give Bush authority to use military force in Iraq instead of saying that Kerry voted for the war, there would have been no need to correct him.

what did it mean then? by voting to give Bush authority to use military force in Iraq isnt voting for war, what is it?

do you think that meant he was giving the military the authority to use strong language on him?

 

[Navy Pride]

OK, although it was supposed to be a little more than just if he "saw fit." If Ivan had stated that Kerry voted to give Bush authority to use military force in Iraq instead of saying that Kerry voted for the war, there would have been no need to correct him.

You and I both know there was no vote on the war...why do you quibble about such minor points?

 

[Iriemon]

what did it mean then? by voting to give Bush authority to use military force in Iraq isnt voting for war, what is it?

do you think that meant he was giving the military the authority to use strong language on him?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

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.

(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 thereafter 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 joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

It was not a referendum vote on war with Iraq. The resolution was passed in Oct 2002, months before the war. It gave Bush authorization to use force, as he determines necessary and appropriate. And the use of force was only after his determination that (1) diplomacy would not work, and (2) use of force is consistent with actions against international terrorist organizations.

This resolution was not an an approval of the war which started in March 2003, but authorizing Bush to make the determination whether use of armed force and war was necessary.

I personally think this kind of "pass the buck" by Congress (Dems included) in its constitutional war making power is wrong; and Congress should be required to make a decision on whether to go to war and not just fob off the decision on the president.

 

[Iriemon]

You and I both know there was no vote on the war...why do you quibble about such minor points?

Apparently Ivan doesn't know what you and I know.

And I don't think it's a minor point.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

OK, although it was supposed to be a little more than just if he "saw fit." If Ivan had stated that Kerry voted to give Bush authority to use military force in Iraq instead of saying that Kerry voted for the war, there would have been no need to correct him.

That's what I said. This arguement is silly.

what did it mean then? by voting to give Bush authority to use military force in Iraq isnt voting for war, what is it?

do you think that meant he was giving the military the authority to use strong language on him?

:rofl

Apparently Ivan doesn't know what you and I know.

And I don't think it's a minor point.

Reread the post...

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Iriemon
.. If Ivan had stated that Kerry voted to give Bush authority to use military force in Iraq instead of saying that Kerry voted for the war, there would have been no need to correct him.

That's what I said. This arguement is silly.

:rofl

Reread the post...

Sorry, I missed the post where you said Kerry voted to give Bush authority to use military force in Iraq instead of saying that Kerry voted for the war.

I did see the post where you stated: "Kerry did in fact vote for the war." in #76.

Glad we got this silliness settled up, and we all agree that there was no vote on the war, like NP said.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Sorry, I missed the post where you said Kerry voted to give Bush authority to use military force in Iraq instead of saying that Kerry voted for the war.

lmfao voting for the AUMF is the same thing as voting for the war.

 

[Iriemon]

lmfao voting for the AUMF is the same thing as voting for the war.

lmfao no there's a big difference.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

lmfao no there's a big difference.

umm no there's not if Kerry was not voting in favor for the war in Iraq then why didn't he vote against the AUMF?

 

[Iriemon]

umm no there's not if Kerry was not voting in favor for the war in Iraq then why didn't he vote against the AUMF?

Cuz he passed the buck to the pres like the rest of them.

Tho' I suppose you could make an argument that in Oct 2002 the US was staring down Hussein about the inspectors, and giving the president this authority gave him credibility and leverage in his threats and negotiations with Hussein.

I also personally think Kerry felt pressured because he voted against the resolution for war in Iraq in 1990, which turned out to be a successful military action.

In any case, the joint resolution was passed in Oct 2002, how could that be voting for a war that didn't start until Mar 2003?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Cuz he passed the buck to the pres like the rest of them.

They whom shall not be blamed. :roll:

Tho I suppose you could make an argument that in Oct 2002 the US was staring down Hussein about the inspectors, and giving the president this authority gave him credibility and leverage in his threats and negotiations with Hussein.

Yada yada yada it was not a resolution to threaten Saddam Hussein it was a resolution to leverage war against him.

In any case, the joint resolution was passed in Oct 2002, how could that be voting for a war that didn't start until Mar 2003?

Umm because the AUMF is what allowed that war to happen.

 

[Iriemon]

They whom shall not be blamed. :roll:

Yada yada yada it was not a resolution to threaten Saddam Hussein it was a resolution to leverage war against him.

Umm because the AUMF is what allowed that war to happen.

Don't disagree with any of this. But bottom line, a vote giving the president authority to use force is not the same as a vote for war. The former is a pass the buck delegation of decision making authority. The latter is an affirmative decision of either yay or nay for a war. Congress did the former, not the latter. Not that I am applauding Kerry or the rest of Congress for that act.

 

[Navy Pride]

Sorry, I missed the post where you said Kerry voted to give Bush authority to use military force in Iraq instead of saying that Kerry voted for the war.

I did see the post where you stated: "Kerry did in fact vote for the war." in #76.

Glad we got this silliness settled up, and we all agree that there was no vote on the war, like NP said.

Its really a matter of semantics.........By giving him the authority is about the same as authorizing jim to invade.........

 

[ProudAmerican]

Don't disagree with any of this. But bottom line, a vote giving the president authority to use force is not the same as a vote for war.

one of your lamest attempts at dodging the issue yet.

if Kerry had voted not to give the president authority to use force then it would have been a vote against the war.

its just that simple.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Lucky for you I was just having a separate argument involving the Senate vote on the AUMF:



[/B]

Im confused.

so a vote by Kerry to AUMF did not mean authorization for war?

again, I suppose it meant the president now had the authority to use stern language on Saddam.

no wait.....a WATER CANNON. thats what Kerry meant.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Its really a matter of semantics.........By giving him the authority is about the same as authorizing jim to invade.........

semantics are how many left leaners try to win debates. its usually all they have.

 

[Iriemon]

one of your lamest attempts at dodging the issue yet.

if Kerry had voted not to give the president authority to use force then it would have been a vote against the war.

its just that simple.

I agree that the difference is a little subtle, and that some folks may have a little trouble grasping the difference between giving authority to use military force if necessary on the one hand, and voting in favor of war on the other.

But I think most people here have the intellegence to understand the concepts.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I agree that the difference is a little subtle, and that some folks may have a little trouble grasping the difference between giving authority to use military force if necessary on the one hand, and voting in favor of war on the other.

But I think most people here have the intellegence to understand the concepts.

What I understand is that if Kerry had truly been opposed to the war in Iraq he naturally would have voted against the AUMF but he didn't because he wasn't.

 

[Navy Pride]

umm no there's not if Kerry was not voting in favor for the war in Iraq then why didn't he vote against the AUMF?

Kerry has flip flopped so many times on this issue it depends as to what the polls say at the time as to where he stands............

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

What I understand is that if Kerry had truly been opposed to the war in Iraq he naturally would have voted against the AUMF but he didn't because he wasn't.

Agreed my time shall no longer be wasted on this issue.

Ivan The Terrible has left the debate!