Forums | MacLife

bratboy wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

What do you mean with the with the word "findings". Is findings what Clinton plans on doing (the ends), or is findings the reasons for why the Iraq Liberation Act should be passed. If findings are the reasons for passage of said act, then yes, those are clear and unequivocal and the same as Bush's later reasons to remove Sadaam by force. The desired end result is also the same, namely the removal of the regime and the implementation of democracy.

If the word "findings" instead is how to achieve said results then they are different.

"Findings" refers to what was actually determined to be the factual "findings" as included in the act.  I never knew that the word had so many other [apparent] uses.

So, the antiwar crowd are attempting to argue not just that the means to achieve the ends were wrong which is debatable, but that bush lied about the rationale to achieve the ends too (ie that Iraq wasn't a threat).

And the "antiwar crowd" (now apparently encompassing a good number of Americans) would be right.  What you constantly ignore in these discussions is that the most provocative claims--the ones members of this administration used over and over and over--were NOT well-documented.  Even worse, those same administration officials continued to push those claims even after our own intelligence agencies were telling them "you know, we don't think this stuff is true."  Americans weren't worried about fuzzy satellite images of tubes, they cared about 'Iraq training AQ in the use of biological weapons.'

Almost anyone on the intelligence comittee, the clintons, Gore, anyone who was a democrat who signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Dennis Kucinich, I'm sure was not on board.

So by "most" you don't mean "majority of."  Got it.

Are you suggesting that war is never acceptable?

Nope, never said that.

Clearly, if one voted for both the Iraq Liberation act and to authorize the use of force in iraq they either believe that Iraq was a genuine threat that needed to be dealt with, that regime change was a legitimate goal, or were all bunch of neocons, even back under clinton.Hell including Clinton and Gore.

The ILA clearly stated that it did NOT authorize or envision a "regime change" carried out through American military force.  Once again, you're claiming that if someone supported "regime change" in Iraq then they must necessarily support ANY method of obtaining it, regardless of cost.

Here are the "findings" of the ILA:
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.
(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.
(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.
(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat.
(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.
(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.
(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.
(8) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.
(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.
(12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

Clearly, not indicative of the antiwar stance that Iraq doesn't pose a threat, and clearly in keeping with Bush's claims of Iraq not complying AND of a need for a regime change AND the suggestion that a democratic government could and would replace the regime once it was removed.

you write:

The ILA clearly stated that it did NOT authorize or envision a "regime change" carried out through American military force.  Once again, you're claiming that if someone supported "regime change" in Iraq then they must necessarily support ANY method of obtaining it, regardless of cost

What did I just say in the previous paragraphs?!? I said the rationale for regime change is the SAME in both administrations, though how to carry it out is different. And as I stated, Bush came after Clinton, after seeing the implementation of the ILA not in fact remove the regime AND after 9/11 when any festering crisises which were already a stand off with a failing containment policy becoming that much more dire. The ILA has to be effective in actually carrying out its goals, otherwise why continue following its guidelines. Therefore, the method on how to achieve the goals changes with changing circumstances. And again I would state, that in fact,the Bush achieved a regime change and the ILA did not.

If you could show how the ILA could be used to carry out the goal of regime change then I can see favoring it over say war. But such evidence is not in evidence. And whether or not you think going to war is achieving the result  through any means, or too high a cost, it doesn't change the rationale for removing the regime. And that's where the anti war crowd has been lying. It's not enough that the costs of war were too high. No, its also that Bush lied about the rationale for war. And clearly anyone who signed off on the ILA in the first place has no basis for making such an argument as that would, in fact, undermine the basis for the ILA in the first place.

everlong205 wrote:

Clearly, not indicative of the antiwar stance that Iraq doesn't pose a threat, and clearly in keeping with Bush's claims of Iraq not complying AND of a need for a regime change AND the suggestion that a democratic government could and would replace the regime once it was removed.

It actually doesn't claim an imminent "threat" nor even an active pursuit of weapons. 

No, its also that Bush lied about the rationale for war. And clearly anyone who signed off on the ILA in the first place has no basis for making such an argument as that would, in fact, undermine the basis for the ILA in the first place.

Members of the Bush Administration made several assertions that are not found anywhere in the ILA, including assertions related to AQ as well as those regarding Iraq's supposed possession of WMD.   

...and there was this, of course.

...and this...

I'm simply amazed that being against war is something to be reviled at all.

user wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Therefore, atheists such as I are freed by the Constitution from being required to adhere to any religion at all in order to be full citizens of this country.

:facepalm:

Well, that's true. Not sure why you're covering your face.

It's the juxtaposition of that statement with his other one that I quoted, not either statement taken alone.

user wrote:

I'm simply amazed that being against war is something to be reviled at all.

That's because being against the Iraq war is "unreasonable" -- extremist in fact, even though most Americans agree.

everlong205 wrote:

user wrote:

I'm simply amazed that being against war is something to be reviled at all.

Actually being completely against war is irrational, and shows a misunderstanding of the world. This is not to say that we should be pro all wars or even most wars, or that those who are pro specific wars are pro all wars or like to kill people or think war is fun. War is sometimes a necessary action, though its always a horrible thing.

I can see arguing specific wars on the merits, and the costs versus benefits, but to be against all war as an absolute is just a silly argument.

Proud owner of a hammer and little else ^^^^

War is one of the last options that should be considered. It the sort of thing that should only be consider when reasonable options have failed. That not to say be a door mat but exercise more and better discretion with the options.

bratboy wrote:

It actually doesn't claim an imminent "threat" nor even an active pursuit of weapons.

The ILA states that Iraq failed to comply with obligataions it agreed to and further ignored resolutions of the UNSC. These are tied into is lack of cooperation in disarming and weapons. It's a given to all involved that Iraq has not disarmed itself, is actively not cooperating and very likely continuing with weapons programs.
If, for example, Iraq was complying the whole time, or at the time the ILA was passed, there would be no reason for the ILA would there? That is a response to lack of action, or action depending on how you want to look at it, of Iraq vis a vis its responsibilities to disarm. Can you point to one bit of evidence after Clinton and congress enacted the ILA and Bush took office that changed any of the consensus on the ground or among the security counsel members? Didn't think so.
Also, Bush said we had to deal with Iraq before the threat was imminent. This is the reasoning behind the bush doctrine. Also, while no mention of Al Qaeda is in the ILA the clintons did suggest there was a linkage back in 1998. But also note, that despite not having such linkage and despite not saying the threat was imminent, the Clintons and congress still passed the ILA. Which means, that just the facts on the ground in 1998, and Iraq's lack of compliance was enough to call for a regime change. The threat didn't have to be imminent for the threat to be such that Clinton called for regime change.

Here's clinton in 1998:

Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998

In November Clinton already stated that:

"The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."

So again, that is the status of Iraq as per the last president, who came to the same conclusion as the president who followed him.

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-07-18 3:04 pm)

Tallgeese wrote:

user wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

:facepalm:

Well, that's true. Not sure why you're covering your face.

It's the juxtaposition of that statement with his other one that I quoted, not either statement taken alone.

"...these verdicts have no standing in American law."? They go together.

everlong205 wrote:

And again, I'll note, that Bush in fact did get regime change and transition to democracy and in fact Clinton did not.

....at a massive cost that most Americans do not believe was worth it.

bratboy wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

It's a given to all involved that Iraq has not disarmed itself, is actively not cooperating and very likely continuing with weapons programs.

Oh yes, "a given."  We often reference those when interpreting legislative rulings.



This whole business about the ILA is meaningless.  To the extent that a politician who voted for the act later dismissed a specific finding of that Act...you have a point (your "givens" are not persuasive).  However, there is nothing inconsistent in having voted for the ILA and then voting against giving the President the authority to invade.

Would you argue that the support of the American people would have been nearly as strong based solely on the findings of that ILA and not on the more sensational (and poorly sourced) claims that came immediately prior to the invasion? 

I'm still wondering about that percentage of radical far-left antiwar Americans....

Ok, if you vote for the ILA then you are agreeing with its findings. Its findings are a given. These findings are the same findings that Bush later uses to justify war. There is no point in the historical record after the passage of teh ILA and Bush assuming the presidency, where any facts on the ground changed. In fact its worse, in that all inspectors had left the country till the threat of war. The findings are that iraq was not complying and had racked up multiple violations etc etc etc. Incontrovertible. The only difference, is that one can look at the findings and say, despite what we know the costs of going to war are too high. This doesn't change the findings underlying both policies.

For those who voted for the ILA and who later voted to give the president authorization they cannot later claim that they were tricked in doing so. For those who voted (because of a sincere belief in its findings) that the ILA accurately represented our assesment of Iraq at the time (and if they voted for it and didn't believe in its findings, then they are the lowest of the low politician) then its simply a cost benefit analysis about the best way to get a regime change, not a refutation of facts which everyone believed.

everlong205 wrote:

Ok, if you vote for the ILA then you are agreeing with its findings. Its findings are a given. These findings are the same findings that Bush later uses to justify war.

In part, yes.  I'm not convinced that the American public was terribly moved by UN violations, however.