An open letter to the American People,
- Thread starter local 12 proud
- Start date
Garfield1966
Veteran
I read through it (albeit quickly) and I missed the part where it authorized the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Can you point it out to me?
Thanks
Garfield1966
Veteran
In reading the bill, the statement you posted seems to be a sub-category under "Assistance", not an authorization to invade, overthrow and occupy. Furthermore, the assistance is for Iraqi opposition organizations.
Gilding the Lily
Veteran
- Oct 30, 2006
- 1,466
- 2
You are correct Garfield. In fact this bill, codified under 22 U.S.C.S. 2151, has been argued to limit President Bush's activities in Iraq.
Not surprisingly, in 2002, when armed forces arrived in Iraq (mostly by air), Bush used a 1990 Security Council 'authorization' to support his troops' force in Iraq.
The 1990 resolution of the Security Council authorizes member states "to use all necessary means," including force, (1) "to uphold and implement" a resolution recognizing Iraqi aggression in Kuwait and demanding that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait; (2) to uphold and implement "all subsequent relevant 77 resolutions;" and (3) "to restore peace and security in the area" in and around Iraq.
Obviously, this 'authorization' was drafted for Bush Sr.'s war in Iraq... but Bush Jr. used the resolution for the beginning stages of his war as well.
The funny thing is that Bush Jr. only mentioned the 1990 resolution and failed to adhere to the 1991 resolution that placed strict limitations on the 1990 resolution. Congress, knowing the potential for abuse, decided to strike the 'uphold and implement "all subsequent relevant 77 resolutions'" portion of the resolution.
Thus, the congressional authorization did not support ongoing presidential use of armed force against Iraq or some future upgrade of the de facto war in order to remove the Iraqi regime from power or to destroy Iraqi weapons of mass destruction during the early days of the war.
And for those who would attempt to suggest otherwise: any limitations in the 1991 congressional authorization would override the domestic legal effect of broader authorizations in the 1990 Security Council resolution even though the Security Council resolution remained valid under international law.
Since the President is bound faithfully to execute the law (the more limiting 1991 congressional authorization would be the relevant prevailing law), the President was bound to comply with such congressional limitations concerning use of force against Iraq unless they were obviated by an unavoidably inconsistent subsequent congressional or Security Council authorization.
Unfortunately, Dell's H.R. 4655 did not prove "unavoidably inconsistent" with the 1992 resolution. This point is moot, however, because Congress has since given the green light in many regards. But at the time, Bush was severely misusing his power (He should have acted within the confines of Congress's limitations).
Gilding the Lily
Veteran
- Oct 30, 2006
- 1,466
- 2
Neverless...Bill opened the door and Dubya ran with it...
I think you have missed the point. Bush 2 used the policies and resolutions drafted during Bush 1 until Congress reacted to his pressures. (See my post above).
The door was opened by Bush 1 (Desert Storm)... the door was partially closed, but left slightly open by Clinton (H.R. 4655)... and the door was taken off the hinges by Bush 2 (Operation Freedom).
Garfield1966
Veteran
Neverless...Bill opened the door and Dubya ran with it...
Do you have some other source that shows Clinton authorized the invasion, overthrow and subsequent occupation of Iraq? Even Bush I knew that unseating Sadam was not a wise move. Everything I have read and heard indicates that Clinton never had any intention of wasting American lives on invading Iraq.
Clinton never opened any door. Bush did this on his own. He did it against the advice of many in his administration and now is seeking the advice of his fathers former staff to help bail him out of the mess he got himself into. There is a huge difference between a stated desire for a change in a country and putting boots on the ground to obtain said desire. Bush put boots on the ground with out thinking about the ramifications of his actions.
He is trying to save his legacy. He has 2 years to pull a rabbit out of his hat. He has 2 years to get Iraq to a point that it is stable. As far as I am concerned, he is no more likely to accomplish that than sprout wings and fly.
You present an argument related to link. The link is disproved and yet you still insist in the truth of the original premise with no further support. One would think that after 6 years you would stop using Clinton as your ‘hail marry’ when Bush screws up. I guess hope springs eternal.
BTW,its Mary dude.....
get over it...Bush kicked butt and all you lib's can do is whine - whine -whine......
Carrier landing did you clowns in didn't it?
Garfield1966
Veteran
If you are equating ‘balls’ with invading a country under false pretences, with no exit plan and no understanding of the reality of the situation then I agree with you 100% that Clinton had no balls and I am great full for that.
The point is that it cannot be done with boots on the ground. Change has to come from with in. That is why most administrations will support opposition groups. That usually does not work well either but it has a better chance of success than putting troops in a country, occupying said country and then forcing them to accept our way of thinking. That, to my understanding has never worked. Bush was/is trying to change a culture that has existed for 4,000 years. Talk about delusions of grandeur. My guess is when the Baker report comes out, you will see him backing off his expectations. Like I said, he has 2 more years to work this out before he gets to pass this can of worms to the next poor sap in the white house. I hope it’s a republican. That would be too funny for words.
If you think Bush has no issues, that’s fine. The rest of the country seems to disagree with you give the fact that his approval rating is one of the lowest in history.
I don’t care if it is mary or marry. I don’t follow football and could really care less as long as the point was conveyed and I see that it was.
Have you even seen the pols on Bush’s war in Iraq? We are not the only ones who think it was a monumental mistake. A huge number of your rank and file members are in agreement with us as well.
Of course his silly carrier landing irritated us. Aside from it being an embarrassing act of grand standing, it turned out to be utterly false. He said ‘mission accomplished’ and a few days ago he says we will not leave till we are successful. It was a lie when he landed and it is wish thinking at best right now.
The point is that it cannot be done with boots on the ground. Change has to come from with in. That is why most administrations will support opposition groups. That usually does not work well either but it has a better chance of success than putting troops in a country, occupying said country and then forcing them to accept our way of thinking. That, to my understanding has never worked. Bush was/is trying to change a culture that has existed for 4,000 years. Talk about delusions of grandeur. My guess is when the Baker report comes out, you will see him backing off his expectations. Like I said, he has 2 more years to work this out before he gets to pass this can of worms to the next poor sap in the white house. I hope it’s a republican. That would be too funny for words.
If you think Bush has no issues, that’s fine. The rest of the country seems to disagree with you give the fact that his approval rating is one of the lowest in history.
I don’t care if it is mary or marry. I don’t follow football and could really care less as long as the point was conveyed and I see that it was.
Have you even seen the pols on Bush’s war in Iraq? We are not the only ones who think it was a monumental mistake. A huge number of your rank and file members are in agreement with us as well.
Of course his silly carrier landing irritated us. Aside from it being an embarrassing act of grand standing, it turned out to be utterly false. He said ‘mission accomplished’ and a few days ago he says we will not leave till we are successful. It was a lie when he landed and it is wish thinking at best right now.
Garfield1966
Veteran
Out of the entire post that is the only issue you respond to and that is the best you can come up with? "Well Clinton did it first". Sounds like kindergarden.
Why is it anytime you cannot come up with an argument, you try and justify Bush’s actions by the actions of someone else? Does that make it OK? At you acknowledge that Bush was grandstanding on the carrier.
Why is it anytime you cannot come up with an argument, you try and justify Bush’s actions by the actions of someone else? Does that make it OK? At you acknowledge that Bush was grandstanding on the carrier.
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
This is just about the only intelligent read I've seen you post since you came on this forum. You must be off the juice this evening B) .
700IAM
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2006
- 674
- 0
Gee Lilly Pad...looks like you won approval from a ranking member of the supreme tribunal council.
You must be turning on us, first that nasty website and now this...I am so disappointed my dear.
Gilding the Lily
Veteran
- Oct 30, 2006
- 1,466
- 2
I wanted to apologize to the faithful posters on US Aviation. Apparently PITbull thought my last post was intelligent.
If PITbull thought my last post was intelligent I must have been "completely off my rocker." I will try to do better next time and post something that PITbull claims is a nuisance to his common sensibilities.
