WHY THE A.U.M.F. VOTE WAS A VOTE FOR U.N.
DEBATE TIMELINE: AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
A.U.M.F. was a firewall to stop and divert Bush from a fall (pre congressional
elections) invasion (liberation) of Baghdad.
The US campaign to change the Iraqi regime started at end-July (2002), quietly, step-by-step, without a war declaration, without congressional approval and without much noise.
Downing Street Memo July 23, 2002: The Defense
Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of
activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but
he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was
January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the
US Congressional elections.
Of course a YES "vote" might lead to war, but a NO "vote" or if the A.U.M.F. resolution was never submitted, would of made no difference.
The only chance to stop Bush from war was to defuse the pending crisis through the United Nations and get the weapons inspector back into Iraq. Without the U.S. "Use of Force" threat, Saddam would of never negotiated with Kofi Annan. Was it good or bad thing that Hans Blix and the U.N. weapons inspectors were allowed by Saddam re-entry into Iraq? If it was a vote for war, why was Iraq invaded by U.N. Weapons Inspectors not armed forces If it was a vote for war, why was the senate A.U.M.F. debate only on process and how to get U.N. weapons inspectors re-entry into Iraq, nobody was for doing nothing. If it was a vote for war, how do you explain Hans Blix and the U.N. weapons inspectors re-entry into Iraq with (for the first time) unfetter complete access to any site including 6 presidential palaces.
Liberal Magazine The Nation: "Antiwar forces in the United States and around the world can claim the recent UN resolution (1441) as a partial victory. The resolution does not endorse the use of force; it redefines the Iraq crisis, at least in the international arena, as one of disarmament, not regime change; and it will at least delay a US attack"
President Bush: "Pass a Resolution or be Bypassed" (U.N. Speech 9-12-02)
Bush was marching to war and he did not need or want an "Iraq
War Resolution" or need a new U.N. Resolutions to do so.
Senate A.U.M.F. Debate 10/10/2002
Mrs. BOXER: This administration did not want to bring the debate on this war to Congress. We have many quotes I have already put in the RECORD on that subject. They did not want the President to go to the United Nations. Indeed, they said he did not have to go there; he did not have to come here; he did not have to do anything.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suppose this resolution is something of an improvement. Back in August the President's advisors insisted that there was not even any need for authorization from Congress to go to war. They said past resolutions sufficed.
Others in the administration argued that the United States should attack Iraq preemptively and unilaterally, without bothering to seek the support of the United Nations, even though it is Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions which is used to justify military action.
Eventually, the President listened to those who urged him to change course and he went to the United Nations. He has since come to the Congress. I commended President Bush for doing that.
I fully support the efforts of Secretary Powell to negotiate a strong, new Security Council resolution for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, backed up with force, if necessary, to overcome Iraqi resistance.
Mr. BIDEN. As late as August 29 of this year, the White House counsel--the White House counsel--reportedly told the President that he had all the authority he needs to wage war against Iraq--there was a big deal about leaking a memorandum from the White House counsel to the world that Congress need not be involved, Mr. President. I had two private meetings with the President myself, where I made clear that I thought that was dead wrong and he would be--to use the slang on the east side of my city--``in a world of hurt'' if he attempted to do that.
Mr. DURBIN. Initially the White House said: We don't need congressional approval. We can move forward. They went on to say: We can do it unilaterally. We don't need any allies. We can attack Iraq if necessary by ourselves. And the President said our goal is regime change. We want Saddam Hussein gone.
Mr. SPECTER. I commend President Bush for coming to Congress. Originally he said he did not need to do so and would not do so. Later, he modified that, saying that while he might not have to, he was coming to Congress. He initially talked about unilateral action, and since has worked very hard in the United Nations
The power of a president to use (unilateral) military force is un-checkable, the only way to stop a president is to remove him from office through impeachment.
of a President: United States "Use of Force" without congressional
Panama in 1901;
Dominican Republic in 1904, 1914, 1965;
Cuba, the naval quarantine, 1962
Panama, that was just cause in 1989;
Somalia in 1992;
Sudan, Afghanistan, August of 1998.
Desert Fox in December of 1998,
Kosovo in March of 1999
On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress. These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1870, the Philippine-American War from 1898-1903, and in Nicaragua in 1927
Only because in the run up to the US-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudis said they would not allow American planes to carry out air strikes from the Prince Sultan base without a U.N. resolution authorizing war, Bush had no intention of getting congressional approval or new U.N. resolution till he was forced to.
A.U.M.F. and U.N. resolution 1441 weighed heavily on diplomacy and U.N. inspectors first, not war. A.U.M.F. was meant to send a strong message to Saddam "you better comply" and he did.
Saddam complied with every demand and it was Bush who keep raising and raising the "bar" till he (Bush) could claim that Saddam was of out of compliance of U.N. Resolution 1441 triggering the invasion.
Iraq war buildup timeline and A.U.M.F. Debate Quotes
What most fail to understand is that Bush had the authority and already pulled the trigger for WAR and was going to invade Iraq long before the A.U.M.F. vote and Bush would have invaded Iraq with or without A.U.M.F. passage or failure. There were only going to be 2 options on the table and the third option of doing nothing was not one of them.
In 1992 the Gulf War had 52-47 senate votes and in 2002 the Iraq War had 76-23.
Don't you find it curious (in your view) why so many democrats would vote for
war. But they did not vote for WAR, the Democrats traded a YES vote on A.U.M.F. for a
Bush promise to go to U.N. which he kept. Bush got the U.N. to pass Res 1441 and
Saddam gave in and allow weapons inspectors with unlimited inspection rights to
re-enter after a 4 year absence.
If Bush stopped and didn't invade Iraq and let and allowed the weapons inspectors to do their job, it would looked like a brilliant foreign policy move. Bush got greedy and lust for war overwhelmed him, he did not follow through on 2nd U.N. vote abandoning any hope for a large U.N. sponsored coalition. Bush also failed to get a promised 2nd vote from congress before invading Iraq.
Iraq War Resolution Timeline
Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11
(CNN) -- The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.
CNN.com - O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 - Jan. 14, 2004
Gen. Tommy Franks
Feb. 19, 2002
Senator Graham (chairman senate intelligence committee) also revealed that Gen. Tommy Franks told him on Feb. 19, 2002, just four months after the invasion of Afghanistan, that many important resources - including the Predator drone aircraft crucial to the search for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida leaders - were being shifted to prepare for a war in Iraq.
World and nation: New Graham book makes 9/11-Saudi link
Equipment Intercepting Al-Qaeda Communications
In Afghanistan Arena Is Sent to Iraq
The US Air Force’s only two specially-equipped RC135 U spy planes credited with having successfully intercepted the radio transmissions and cell phone calls of al-Qaeda’s leaders are pulled from Afghanistan to conduct surveillance over Iraq. [Guardian, 3/26/2004] NSA satellites are boreholed, (or redirected) from Afghanistan to Iraq as well. [Atlantic Monthly, 10/2004]
Number of MASH units are being called up to report for duty in July
Among the more telling signals not discussed yet in the
mainstream media is the revelation that a number of MASH units are being called
up to report for duty in July. These same units will be committed up to a 6
month period from the July date, that is, through the fall congressional
elections. Added to this is the increasing reserve call-up of troops and the
deployment of more warships to the region, including war games in the coming
weeks with India. Further evidence of a push for a late summer/early fall
invasion is the churning out of weapons, including the so-called "low-yield"
nuclear bunker buster bomb.
Downing Street memo
A leaked secret Downing Street memo asserts that by July 2002, Bush effectively had decided to go to war, which belies his repeated claim that he was still eagerly pursuing
Bush plan to invade Iraq challenged by senators
11 July 2002
Concern at Mr Bush's plans has grown for months. Last week The New York Times reported that Pentagon planners were proposing to invade Iraq with up to 250,000 troops, probably early next year, using American bases in a number of countries in the region.
Bush plan to invade Iraq challenged by senators - Independent Online Edition > Americas
Scott Ritter: Facts
needed before Iraq attack
17 July 2002
Scott Ritter: I believe Washington D.C. is using the concept of inspections as a political foil to justify war. America doesn't want the inspectors to return. The best way to stop war is to get the inspectors back in. I believe it should be the policy of the United Nations to get the inspectors back in.
CNN.com - Scott Ritter: Facts needed before Iraq attack - July 17, 2002
Evidence of Bush’s Early Decision to Invade Iraq
July 23, 2002
Pretty ironclad proof that Bush was not misled by bad intelligence on Iraq WMD, but instead cooked the intelligence books intentionally to justify an a priori decision to invade. From London’s Sunday Times: The secret Downing Street memo
lies.com » Evidence of Bush’s Early Decision to Invade Iraq
Steps Before War
August 11, 2002
The Constitution gives Congress alone the power to declare
war. In modern times, presidents have used their own constitutional authority as
commanders in chief to conduct undeclared wars, most notably in Vietnam. In the
case of Iraq, the White House is weighing the use of military force to try to
eliminate future dangers, rather than to respond to present aggression. That
affords ample time for Congressional action. Bypassing Congress would also be
politically irresponsible. Wars rarely proceed according to plan. Battlefield
setbacks can swiftly erode public support. If that happened, Congressional
involvement could temper the kind of divisions America experienced over Vietnam.
At this point, administration officials, who met this weekend with
representatives of Iraq's fragmented opposition, seem more interested in
listening to the wishful talk of Iraqi dissidents than consulting with Congress.
Does Bush Need Congressional Okay to Invade Iraq?
Aug. 26 2002
On Aug. 26, White House lawyers issued an opinion that President Bush could order a preemptive attack against Iraq without a vote of approval from Congress. The lawyers based their opinion on two factors:
The president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the military (Article II, Sec. 2)·
Terms of the 1991 Gulf War resolution they content remains in effect today
Terms of the Sept. 14, 2001 congressional resolution approving military action against terrorism (S.J. Res 23)·
Does President Bush Need the Approval of Congress to Attack Iraq?
White House lawyers that Bush does not require Congressional approval for an attack on Iraq
From this, it's a short step to other manifestations of
imperial decision-making, such as the August 26 opinion by White House lawyers
that Bush does not require Congressional approval for an attack on Iraq.
Supposedly, the 1991 resolution secured by the elder Bush for Operation Desert
Storm is sufficient. "We don't want to be in the legal position of asking
Congress to authorize the use of force when the President already has that full
authority," a senior White House official told the Washington Post.
Saudis would not allow American planes to carry out air strikes from the Prince Sultan base
In the run up to the US-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudis said
they would not allow American planes to carry out air strikes from the Prince
Sultan base without a UN resolution authorizing war.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | US pulls out of Saudi Arabia
BUSH MAY REQUEST CONGRESS'S BACKING ON IRAQ, AIDES SAY
August 29, 2002
To seek some new explicit sign of approval from Congress -- but not necessarily a formal vote
Despite confident assertions by the White House this week that the president has all the legal authority and Congressional approval he needs for an invasion of Iraq.
BUSH MAY REQUEST CONGRESS'S BACKING ON IRAQ, AIDES SAY - New York Times
Former U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter
address the Iraqi Parliament
September 8, 2002
The only way that Iraq can achieve this (stop war) is with the unconditional return of
UN weapons inspectors, allowing such inspectors unfettered access to sites
inside Iraq in order to complete the disarmament tasks as set forth in
Security Council resolutions...
IRAQ: AZIZ SAYS IT IS RIDICULOUS FOR INSPECTORS TO REENTER IRA
September 9, 2002
IRAQ: AZIZ SAYS IT IS RIDICULOUS FOR INSPECTORS TO REENTER IRAQ
President Bush delivers a speech to the United Nation
September 12, 2002
On September 12, amid increasing speculation that the United States is
preparing to invade Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, President Bush delivers a
speech to the United Nations calling on the organization to enforce its
resolutions for disarming Iraq. Bush strongly implies that if the United Nations
does not act, the United States will a message that US officials make more
explicit the following week.
Four days later, Baghdad announces that it will allow arms inspectors to return "without conditions." Iraqi and UN officials meet September 17 to discuss the logistical arrangements for the return of inspectors and announce that final arrangements will be made at a meeting scheduled for the end of the month. The United States contends that there is nothing to talk about and warns that the Iraqis are simply stalling. The Bush administration continues to press the Security Council to approve a new UN resolution calling for Iraq to give weapons inspectors unfettered access and authorizing the use of force if Iraq does not comply..
Don't Attack Saddam By Brent Scowcroft
September 15, 2002
In any event, we should be pressing the United Nations
Security Council to insist on an effective no-notice inspection regime for Iraq
-- any time, anywhere, no permission required. On this point, senior
administration officials have opined that Saddam Hussein would never agree to
such an inspection regime. But if he did, inspections would serve to keep him
off balance and under close observation, even if all his weapons of mass
destruction capabilities were not uncovered. And if he refused, his rejection
could provide the persuasive casus belli which many claim we do not now have.
Compelling evidence that Saddam had acquired nuclear-weapons capability could
have a similar effect.
Pass a Resolution or be Bypassed
September 16, 2002
There he stood, this unlikely emperor of the world, telling
the UN's 190 nations how it is going to be. The assembled nations may not be
quite the toothless Roman senate of imperial times, but at the UN the hyperpower
and its commander-in-chief are in control as never before: how could it be
otherwise when the US army is the UN's only enforcer? This is, President Bush
said, "a difficult and defining moment" for the UN, a challenge that will show
whether it has become "irrelevant". He pointed his silver-tongued gun with some
delicacy and a certain noblesse oblige, but there was no doubt he was holding it
to the UN's head: pass a resolution or be bypassed.
Saudi Arabia hints it will let
Americans launch attack from Prince Sultan base
September 16, 2002
In an interview in Al-Hayat, the London-based Arabic newspaper, the
Prince urged Iraq to admit UN weapons inspectors before a new Security Council
resolution cleared the way for an attack if it refused. "Timing is important,
and allowing inspectors back before a Security Council resolution to that effect
would be in Iraq's favor," he said.
Saudi Arabia hints it will let Americans launch attack from Prince Sultan base - Independent Online Edition > Middle East
30,000 US Troops Already In Iraq
September 16, 2002
Around 100 US/UK jet fighters 10 days ago bombed and destroyed airbases H-3 and al-Baghdadi in western Iraq, close to the Jordanian border. Earlier, on 5 August, the allied forces destroyed an air defense base in southwest Iraq, near the Saudi border. Reports indicate that the Iraqi forces have withdrawn from the air bases and the command and control centers that were bombed, and have been replaced by US forces which have started repairing the bases to use them later. Before that, US forces, supported by Turkish troops, penetrated northern Iraq and reached a distance of around 30km from Mosul and Kirkuk. The reports also indicate that the US and allied forces are a few kilometers away from Basra, and US and allied forces now occupy more than 15% of Iraqi territory.
The destruction of the first defense lines for the Iraqi forces in the north, south and west and have prepared the grounds for the second move which will see the occupation of Basra, Najaf and Kerbala in the south, and Mosul and Kirkuk in the north. From there, the road will be open to US forces to move towards Baghdad and Tikrit from the west. It is estimated that there are today no less than 30,000 US soldiers in Iraq, mostly in the north.
The above confirms that the US campaign to change the Iraqi regime started at
end-July, quietly, step-by-step, without a war declaration, and without much
noise. What is strange is that Iraq, which is fully aware of the US presence on
its territory, is not ready to publicize this for fear of the effect on the
morale of its armed forces, or whatever is left of them. Otherwise, how can Iraq
justify its silence for the occupation of part of its territory by US forces?
Iraq agrees to weapons inspections
September 17, 2002
Iraq agrees to weapons inspections
NOTE: Saddam saw the six month build-up and placement of the U.S. military ground forces and the U.S. Navy in the region, but this agreement to weapons inspections would of been no better than it was in 1998 and would not have inspectors with "unfettered access", the inspectors would of followed the guidelines set in  MOU [Memorandum of Understanding]
Annan and Iraqi concessions on key weapons inspection
September 19, 2002
September 19 2002
Kofi Annan has
failed to win Iraqi concessions on key weapons inspection
THE United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, did not use the words "peace in our time" when he announced that the letter to him from the Iraqi. Foreign Minister stated that Iraq would "allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq, without conditions".
The economy of Annan's statement did suggest, however, that he thought, like Chamberlain had when he returned from Munich in 1938, that the problem had been solved and war had been averted. Sadly, it appears that Annan will be on no safer ground than was Chamberlain
NOTE: Without the U.S. "Use of Force" threat, Saddam would of never negotiated with Kofi Annan.
Iraq: No new U.N. resolutions
September 21, 2002
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Iraq says it will not cooperate with any new U.N. resolution on arms inspections, as the U.S. pushes for tough ultimatums against Baghdad.
The Iraqi announcement is a direct challenge to U.S. President George W. Bush's
push for a new resolution that puts teeth into current ones, creating concise
and strong consequences should Iraq renege on its agreement.
Al Gore IRAQ AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM
September 23, 2002
I believe that we are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion. If you're going after Jesse James, you ought to organize the posse first. Especially if you're in the middle of a gunfight with somebody who's out after you.
Event Archive: Al Gore - Commonwealth Club
THE NATION: Open Letter to the Members of
September 25, 2002
Even if Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction and wishes to use them, a
policy of deterrence would appear perfectly adequate to stop him, just as it was
adequate a half-century ago to stop a much more fearsome dictator, Joseph
Stalin. It is not true that military force is the only means of preventing the
proliferation of these weapons, whether to Iraq or other countries. An
alternative path is clearly available. In the short run it passes through the
United Nations and its system of inspections, now more promising than before
because Iraq, responding to US pressure, has opened itself unconditionally to
inspectors. At the very least, this path should be fully explored before
military action--the traditional last resort--is even considered.
US meets more resistance on Iraq
October 4, 2002
US meets more
resistance on Iraq
Friday, 4 October, 2002
Opposition to the US line on Iraq is hardening at the United Nations, with Russia and France rejecting a tough new draft resolution on weapons inspections. Russia's President Vladimir Putin said on Friday UN weapons inspectors had to go back to Iraq "as soon as possible". A spokesman for the French Foreign Ministry later said there was "no legal precondition for a new resolution" on weapons inspections in Iraq. And Turkey, a key US military ally bordering on Iraq, said any US attack on Iraq must have international backing
.NOTE: AUMF was used as leverage to force Russia and France to come to the table
on a new tough Iraq resolution with unfettered access to all sites including the
6 president palaces and warn Saddam "you better comply".
|Mr. BIDEN: The President has not asked us to go to war. He has said he wants
the power to be able to go to war.
Mr. BIDEN. Yes, with one caveat. He has expressed to me his ability to achieve a tough resolution would be enhanced by our not making it a two-step process. But he personally has told me and my committee he would consider and the President would consider a U.N. two-step process if they had to. The reason for my saying not two steps now is it strengthens his hand, in my view, to say to all the members of the Security Council: I just want you to know, if you do not give me something strong, I am already authorized, if you fail to do that, to use force against this fellow.
Putin wants quick
return of UN Inspectors to Iraq