1998 Iraq liberation act VS 2002 Authorization for force against Iraq.

[BorisTheBlade]

Hello all,

Just wanted to get your opinions on the differences between Clintons Iraq Liberation act of 1998 and the bush adminitrations 2002 Authorization for the use of military force against Iraq.

In the Iraq liberation act states that "The Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force to achieve its stated goals and purposes, except as authorized under the Act in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act."

Did "carrying out this act", include authorization to launch an invasion/occupation by the US military? Or did it not extend that far?

Why was Clinton permitted to launch airstrikes, but not carry out a ground invasion?

Thanks!

[BayCityProgressive]

1. they were both

horrible acts. I don't know how far Clinton's act extended though.

[BorisTheBlade]

4. Thanks anyway

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hippo_Tron]

3. That's based on the false premise that invading Iraq was in Israel's interest

And that is simply not the case. Saddam was great for Israel because he would never have allowed Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Not to mention the general instability that was created in the region.

There are some right wing Israel supporters that think that Bush's foreign policy is great for Israel but they are just as delusional as any other right wingers. I talked politics with someone from Israel and he said that many people back at home think that Bush is a buffoon and that invading Iraq was not in the interest of Israel's security because of the reason I stated above.

Lamont also won the Jewish vote in the democratic primary (not sure about the general election), and Jewish voters tend to support Israel.

[blm]

5. Clinton WOULDN'T carry out ground invasion because the allies wouldn't support it.

Plus, he faced the same dilemma that exists today - what would happen AFTER? He was wise to restrain himself though he would've liked to go in.

The US needed to hold back from interfering there militarily - nothing good could happen until there was a way to peacefully transfer power from Saddam to another secular leader.

[BorisTheBlade]

6. But

Was Clinton legally authorized to invade? If so was was the
2002 authorization needed?

[karynnj]

7. I would doubt it - just because Bush et al never claimed that

that I know of. They tried to use the war on terror authorization - and went for the IWR when Democrats said he had to go to Congress and the UN.

[BorisTheBlade]

14. That was my thought too

[blm]

9. The IWR was a political tool to divide Dems before an election. Bush was going in

and he already had the LEGAL cover to do so from the 1991 UN resolution, which was their fallback plan if Senate leader Tom Daschle would have refused to bring IWR to the floor.

[BorisTheBlade]

13. 1991 resultion?

There were no resolutions which specifically allowed the US to invade and topple Saddam, except for the use of "all necceacry means" to get Iraq to comply with UN resolutions.

[BorisTheBlade]

15. .

[harveyc]

8. I suppose the US could be considered an opposition group ...

SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.

(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:

(1) BROADCASTING ASSISTANCE- (A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such organizations to Iraq.

(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph.

(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.

(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.

[BorisTheBlade]

12. But

What does "drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense" mean?

[newyawker99]

10. Hi BorisTheBlade!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[BorisTheBlade]

11. thanks :D