My confession....I was once Hillary or Bust...

[BlueStateLib]

56. Simple question?

1- Should Saddam been allowed to keep Kuwait?
2- Should the Iraq no-fly zones been eliminated?
3- Should the Iraq sanctions and embargo been lifted?
4- Should diplomacy and the U.N. Weapons Inspectors involvement been abandoned
5- If it was a vote for war, why was Iraq invade by Hans Blix and the U.N. Weapons Inspectors?

Are you just as angry at those who voted Sept. 14, 2001 congressional resolution approving military action against terrorism (S.J. Res 23) or is your anger just for Hillary.

Within 72 hours of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, a White House lawyer had crafted the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). That law, approved by Congress, gave President George W. Bush the power to start the Iraq War, and ostensibly, the entire War on Terror. The bulk of the law's reach boils down to one of the most powerful sentences ever written, only 60 words of the full law:

“That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future act of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons."
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-60-word-sentence-started-the-war-on-terror-2014-4

The Iraq war started the summer of 2002 (Downing Street Memo July 23, 2002) long before any congressional 2002 vote. Bush had war authorization from 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)·

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 Reports indicate that the Iraqi forces have withdrawn from the air bases and the command and control centers that were bombed, and have been replaced by US forces which have started repairing the bases to use them later.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
http://aumf.awardspace.com/

.

THE NATION: Open Letter to the Members of Congress
September 25, 2002

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. Such a choice in favor of multilateralism, diplomacy and treaty agreements should be part of a much broader policy of nonproliferation and disarmament of the kind that has already enjoyed great success over the past several decades. Under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, for example, 182 nations have agreed to do without nuclear weapons. The larger issue is whether proliferation--not just to Iraq but to many other countries as well--is best addressed by military or political means.
https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/167/34984.html

THE NATION: Half a Victory at the UN
December 2, 2002

In general, antiwar forces in the United States and around the world can claim the recent UN resolution 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. It provides a powerful tool to fight for US accountability to multilateralism and the UN. But it still reflects the heavy-handed domination of the UN and the rest of the world by the United States and ultimately sets the terms for war.
https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/167/35067.html

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011884.php
http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2015/10/will-bernie-sanders-demagogue-hillary.html
http://aumf.awardspace.com/