A Warning To Obama about Bipartisanship--Beware the Lessons of '93

[Decker]

He did not operate in a vacuum. 

I cut to the chase with my analysis.  I avoid going over the scads and scads of Bush (& his administration's) lies and active fraud used to fool the American people and the Congress into buying into the nonsense that Iraq was armed with WMDs and looking to take down the US.

Don't you understand Beach Bum?  Fraud kills consent. 

Bush's lies killed the consent of the People and the Congress.


Beach Bum sits on the jury.  The judge gives the jury their instructions in Bush's murder case.  "If the facts support the conclusion that George Bush intentionally ordered the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses and with no legal justification you must find him guilty...."

Beach Bum, raises his hand and say, "what about the democrats?"

Judge, "They are not relevant to the determination of Bush's guilt or innocence."

Beach Bum, "But they egged on the president to attack Iraq'

Judge, "They are not relevant to the determination of Bush's guilt or innocence."

Beach Bum.  "The democrats voted to fund the war after it started"

Judge, "They are not relevant to the determination of Bush's guilt or innocence."

Beach Bum, raises his hand again..."the democrats are just as responsible"

Judge "Bailiff, throw this jackass out of my court!"


I kid with the jackass comment but you get the idea.

Fraud kills consent (Bush cannot lie to get consent from others) and the democrats actions are not relevant to whether the commander in chief of the military misused his authority in ordering the attack.

[a_joker10]

The UN did not support the present occupation of Iraq with res. 1546.  It recognized the new government.  What else could it do? 

The difference btn Bush and Clinton's use of force repsectively is that Bush systematically lied to the american people about the reasons Iraq had to be attacked.  Bush ordered the invasion in direct violation of a resolution (1441) for disarmament that he claimed he was enforcing.

Bill Clinton didn't do anything of the sort with Kosovo.  The Europeans came to him asking for stability in the region.

Iraq attacked no one.  Iraq wasn't going to attack anyone.  Iraq had no weapons.

So naturally, Bush ordered the invasion to disarm the country that was already disarmed.  The latest intel was bearing that fact out.

Bush ordered the attack in spite of the counter-vailing evidence.

He's a mass murderer b/c of those differences



Let's not lose sight of the fact that the latest intel was showing that Iraq was about as much a threat to the US as Pango Pango.

The death and destruction was not required.  Bush made it so.

I provedtat the UN did in fact endorse the current occupation.

You belittle it because it goes againstuor story.

Too bad the truth always comes out.

again as of 2004 the UN completely endorces the US and collision presence in the exact same way as Kosovo.

So in the same GWB and Clinton should be held to the same accountablity.

Security Council resolution 1546 (2004)

Recognizing the request conveyed in the letter of 5 June 2004 from the Prime
Minister of the Interim Government of Iraq to the President of the Council, which is
annexed to this resolution, to retain the presence of the multinational force,
Recognizing also the importance of the consent of the sovereign Government
of Iraq for the presence of the multinational force and of close coordination between
the multinational force and that government,
Welcoming the willingness of the multinational force to continue efforts to
contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in support of the
political transition, especially for upcoming elections, and to provide security for the
United Nations presence in Iraq, as described in the letter of 5 June 2004 from the
United States Secretary of State to the President of the Council, which is annexed to
this resolution,

[Dos Equis]

I cut to the chase with my analysis.  I avoid going over the scads and scads of Bush (& his administration's) lies and active fraud used to fool the American people and the Congress into buying into the nonsense that Iraq was armed with WMDs and looking to take down the US.

Don't you understand Beach Bum?  Fraud kills consent. 

Bush's lies killed the consent of the People and the Congress.


Beach Bum sits on the jury.  The judge gives the jury their instructions in Bush's murder case.  "If the facts support the conclusion that George Bush intentionally ordered the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses and with no legal justification you must find him guilty...."

Beach Bum, raises his hand and say, "what about the democrats?"

Judge, "They are not relevant to the determination of Bush's guilt or innocence."

Beach Bum, "But they egged on the president to attack Iraq'

Judge, "They are not relevant to the determination of Bush's guilt or innocence."

Beach Bum.  "The democrats voted to fund the war after it started"

Judge, "They are not relevant to the determination of Bush's guilt or innocence."

Beach Bum, raises his hand again..."the democrats are just as responsible"

Judge "Bailiff, throw this jackass out of my court!"


I kid with the jackass comment but you get the idea.

Fraud kills consent (Bush cannot lie to get consent from others) and the democrats actions are not relevant to whether the commander in chief of the military misused his authority in ordering the attack.

Fatal flaw in your colloquy:  the judge must also be the person who encouraged the use of force, authorized the use of force, validated the use of force, and provided the funding for the use of force.   

[Decker]

I provedtat the UN did in fact endorse the current occupation.

You belittle it because it goes againstuor story.

Too bad the truth always comes out.

again as of 2004 the UN completely endorces the US and collision presence in the exact same way as Kosovo.

So in the same GWB and Clinton should be held to the same accountablity.

2004 is an afterthought and not relevant to the legality of the invasion.

Show me exactly where the UN Security Council authorized the US's invasion of Iraq prior to March 20th, 2003.

Only Bush could have ordered the attack on March 20, 2003.

And he did.

That was an illegal order for the simple reason that the UN Security Council did not authorize the use of force.

Also, we can look at it as illegal b/c Bush's attack of Iraq was not justified under any understanding of self defense.

[Decker]

Fatal flaw in your colloquy:  the judge must also be the person who encouraged the use of force, authorized the use of force, validated the use of force, and provided the funding for the use of force.   

?

[MCWAY]

No dice Beach Bum.

Only the president could have ordered the attack.

Only the president.

No one is arguing who ordered the attack. It’s about who authorized the President to make such an order.

Read this very slowly, Decker:

The……..President…..CANNOT………order……….the……..atttack…….WITHOUT………CONGRESSIONAL………APPROVAL.

Congress approved it; Bush ordered it. And, at the end of the day, all your bleatings about an impeachment is simply wishful thinking. Such a process takes SEVERAL MONTHS, just to get started. And by that time, (even under the grandiose assumption that you can make a legitimate case), Bush will be out of office.

[tu_holmes]

No one is arguing who ordered the attack. It’s about who authorized the President to make such an order.

Read this very slowly, Decker:

The……..President…..CANNOT………order……….the……..atttack…….WITHOUT………CONGRESSIONAL………APPROVAL.

Congress approved it; Bush ordered it. And, at the end of the day, all your bleatings about an impeachment is simply wishful thinking. Such a process takes SEVERAL MONTHS, just to get started. And by that time, (even under the grandiose assumption that you can make a legitimate case), Bush will be out of office.

That is completely untrue... The President of the United States being the Commander-In-Chief of the US Armed Forces does not need congressional approval to authorize an attack.

The entire Vietnam War was not authorized by congress, yet was a police action committed by the US President.

The US President can authorize an attack on anything at any time without congressional approval if he so desires.

He simply can not continue to fund those attacks for a prolonged period without the money... which Congress pays out. He also can not declare a "war" without the congressional approval as well.

[Decker]

No one is arguing who ordered the attack. It’s about who authorized the President to make such an order.

Read this very slowly, Decker:

The……..President…..CANNOT………order……….the……..atttack…….WITHOUT………CONGRESSIONAL………APPROVAL.

Congress approved it; Bush ordered it. And, at the end of the day, all your bleatings about an impeachment is simply wishful thinking. Such a process takes SEVERAL MONTHS, just to get started. And by that time, (even under the grandiose assumption that you can make a legitimate case), Bush will be out of office.

First of all Tu_holmes is correct.  The president does not need congressional authority to use the military.

The Congressiona resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "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 regarding Iraq."

Where's the compliance with the Security Council's resolution 1441 MCWAY?

The congressional authority requires it.  Where is it?

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Tell me MCWAY who is given the discretion to use force if NECESSARY?

Who?  ...the president.

Who misused that Congressional authority in ordering the attack MCWAY?

Who?  ...the president.

Under your lopsided understanding, the president can do no wrong in exercising his discretionary authority as commander in chief.

I'm here to tell you that you're interpretation is dead wrong.

Source for quotes from Iraq Resolution: wikipedia

[Dos Equis]

?

The House must impeach and the Senate must remove.  Replace "judge" with "House and Senate" in your scenario. 

[w8tlftr]

You know what's true? Congress controls the money.

They could have cut off funding at any time... but they did not.

So any blood on Bush's hands is on their hands too.

[MCWAY]

First of all Tu_holmes is correct.  The president does not need congressional authority to use the military.
Where's the compliance with the Security Council's resolution 1441 MCWAY?

The congressional authority requires it.  Where is it?
Tell me MCWAY who is given the discretion to use force if NECESSARY?

Who?  ...the president.

Who misused that Congressional authority in ordering the attack MCWAY?

Who?  ...the president.

Under your lopsided understanding, the president can do no wrong in exercising his discretionary authority as commander in chief.

I'm here to tell you that you're interpretation is dead wrong.

Source for quotes from Iraq Resolution: wikipedia

I didn't say the President can do no wrong. What I said is that you got NO CASE against him, neither does the UN. You can speculate 'till the cows come home. Bottom line: He ain't getting impeached, period. If it hasn't happened in four years, it's not happening in two months.

[a_joker10]

2004 is an afterthought and not relevant to the legality of the invasion.

Show me exactly where the UN Security Council authorized the US's invasion of Iraq prior to March 20th, 2003.

Only Bush could have ordered the attack on March 20, 2003.

And he did.

That was an illegal order for the simple reason that the UN Security Council did not authorize the use of force.

Also, we can look at it as illegal b/c Bush's attack of Iraq was not justified under any understanding of self defense.
[/quote

This logic is the same that Clinton used.

By the way the congress must sign off on any use of the military and they control the money.

This is why Nixon had to pull out of Vietnam.

By the way congress did in fact authorize use of force, with the gulf of tolkin resolution.

The same as Clinton and Bush.

That is what Bush did was not illegal and it also followed pprevious protocol.

Congress not the president is ultimately responsible for all of this.

[tu_holmes]

You know what's true? Congress controls the money.

They could have cut off funding at any time... but they did not.

So any blood on Bush's hands is on their hands too.

Now hold on a second... You mean to tell me that you think it would have been OK for Congress to say "no more money", and put the troops in harms way?

You really think that would have played out and brought them home?

Didn't work in Vietnam... Wouldn't work here... It would just make Congress look shitty and not "supporting the troops".

You know this.

Now, for what it's worth... Bush did it... It's done.

Was it "illegal"... Well, I'd say it's a pretty damn gray area there... but you know what... Stop crying over spilled milk.

I don't think any court of law could find Bush guilty of any real crime, because being stupid and getting your country involved in a southwest Asian cluster fuck isn't really a crime.

[Decker]

The House must impeach and the Senate must remove.  Replace "judge" with "House and Senate" in your scenario. 

I wasn't making that analogy.  I was illustrating how frustrating it can be to debate you sometimes.

Have at it...thrust (what about the democrats)...parry (it's not relevant to the question of Bush's behavior)....riposte (what about the democrats)...parry (it's not relevant to the question of Bush's behavior) etc.

[Decker]

I didn't say the President can do no wrong. What I said is that you got NO CASE against him, neither does the UN. You can speculate 'till the cows come home. Bottom line: He ain't getting impeached, period. If it hasn't happened in four years, it's not happening in two months.

Speculation?  Res. 1441 flat out stipulates that no use of force can be initiated by any member country without the UN Security Council's authorization and the Congressional grant of authority to use force echoes that same stipulation.

Where's the problem here?

If authority is discretionary the option of misuse arises.  He had a choice.  He made the criminal choice in ordering the slaughter.

[Decker]

This logic is the same that Clinton used.

By the way the congress must sign off on any use of the military and they control the money.

This is why Nixon had to pull out of Vietnam.

By the way congress did in fact authorize use of force, with the gulf of tolkin resolution.

The same as Clinton and Bush.

That is what Bush did was not illegal and it also followed pprevious protocol.

Congress not the president is ultimately responsible for all of this.

The logic is the same?  Maybe.  But the facts and attendant circumstances are not the same. 

Congress must eventually sign off (fund) on any unilateral use of force initiated by the president.  Under the war powers resolution, that does not have to happen for something like 60 days after the fact of the use of force.

Bush did not follow protocol.  He violated the terms of the Congressional grant of authority to use force and he violated res.l 1441 by not getting Security Council authorization to attack Iraq.  How on earth is that following protocol?

[240 is Back]

You know what's true? Congress controls the money.

They could have cut off funding at any time... but they did not.

So any blood on Bush's hands is on their hands too.

Well... their arms were twisted.

Bush got on TV and said soldier's blood would be on their hands if they didn't give himthe $144 B he wanted.  You had idiots like Palin saying "Why did Obama vote against giving my son money to fight?"

Truth is, if congress had the balls to cut the $ 3-4 years ago, this war would be over today. 

IRAQ has had their elections, they have a govt and population that wants us to GTFO.  The troops want to come home.  The only group that wants us there?  The war machine profiting form our presence there, and their minions like dubya.

[Decker]

Well... their arms were twisted.

Bush got on TV and said soldier's blood would be on their hands if they didn't give himthe $144 B he wanted.  You had idiots like Palin saying "Why did Obama vote against giving my son money to fight?"

Truth is, if congress had the balls to cut the $ 3-4 years ago, this war would be over today. 

IRAQ has had their elections, they have a govt and population that wants us to GTFO.  The troops want to come home.  The only group that wants us there?  The war machine profiting form our presence there, and their minions like dubya.

You're a smart guy.

[Dos Equis]

I wasn't making that analogy.  I was illustrating how frustrating it can be to debate you sometimes.

Have at it...thrust (what about the democrats)...parry (it's not relevant to the question of Bush's behavior)....riposte (what about the democrats)...parry (it's not relevant to the question of Bush's behavior) etc.

Don't blame me if your impeachment scenario doesn't make any sense.  I'm trying to help you get over this Bush hatred. 

[Decker]

Don't blame me if your impeachment scenario doesn't make any sense.  I'm trying to help you get over this Bush hatred. 

good god.

He creates 'evidence' of wmds and AQ ties.  He violates congressional authority and resolution 1441 to attack Iraq .  He has 100,000 people butchered.  He destroys a country.

And Beach Bum is happy with that productivity.

Sheesh.

I can't make you hate evil.  It's your comfort with it that bothers me.

[Dos Equis]

good god.

He creates 'evidence' of wmds and AQ ties.  He violates congressional authority and resolution 1441 to attack Iraq .  He has 100,000 people butchered.  He destroys a country.

And Beach Bum is happy with that productivity.

Sheesh.

I can't make you hate evil.  It's your comfort with it that bothers me.

You mean you still haven't gotten over the 2000 election even after Democrats took complete control of D.C.?  Sheesh.  Some folks will never be satisfied. 

I guess Congress could start impeachment proceedings because the CIC started a war that Congress encouraged before Bush took office, authorized, endorsed, and repeatedly funded, but that really wouldn't pass the common sense test. 
 

[Decker]

You mean you still haven't gotten over the 2000 election even after Democrats took complete control of D.C.?  Sheesh.  Some folks will never be satisfied. 

I guess Congress could start impeachment proceedings because the CIC started a war that Congress encouraged before Bush took office, authorized, endorsed, and repeatedly funded, but that really wouldn't pass the common sense test. 
 

Did you know that the world looks rosey through rose-colored spectacles?

Of course you do.  You're the voice of experience.

[w8tlftr]

Now hold on a second... You mean to tell me that you think it would have been OK for Congress to say "no more money", and put the troops in harms way?

You really think that would have played out and brought them home?

Didn't work in Vietnam... Wouldn't work here... It would just make Congress look shitty and not "supporting the troops".

You know this.

Now, for what it's worth... Bush did it... It's done.

Was it "illegal"... Well, I'd say it's a pretty damn gray area there... but you know what... Stop crying over spilled milk.

I don't think any court of law could find Bush guilty of any real crime, because being stupid and getting your country involved in a southwest Asian cluster fuck isn't really a crime.

No, I don't think it would have been right to put the troops in harms way after the President and Congress put them in harm's way. All I'm saying is that if the Democratically controlled congress was truly serious about the "illegal" war they would have fought hard to pull the funding.

While I can understand Decker's anger on this issue I strongly disagree with him that all of this solely falls upon GWB. Congress is to blame as is the UN.

[Decker]

No, I don't think it would have been right to put the troops in harms way after the President and Congress put them in harm's way. All I'm saying is that if the Democratically controlled congress was truly serious about the "illegal" war they would have fought hard to pull the funding.

While I can understand Decker's anger on this issue I strongly disagree with him that all of this solely falls upon GWB. Congress is to blame as is the UN.

Thanks for your patience.  Bush's lies/fraud had eviscerated/destroyed any consent given by the Congress or the people.  That's boiler plate law.