AUTHORIZATION TO USE FORCE vs. VOTING FOR THE WAR

[wadestock]

Be careful.

You'll be hearing this over the next weeks...possibly months.

A huge part of the sleeze argument will be that the democrats "saw the same evidence"...and made the same decisions...ie...they "supported the war".

Recent Bush speech....carefully note the language....

he correctly stated.....the democrats voted for "the authorization to use force"....(which is interesting correct)....
but then followed immediately by language which states....the democrats supported REGIME CHANGE.

NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

Note very carefully the use of the concept of SUPPORTING the "using force" to morphing this into the concept of....we must then oust Saddam.

Yes....our Democratic representatives rolled over AFTER Bush suddenly proclaimed..."you have 48 hours to leave town"....we must continually remind them of this historic sucking up....

but let us not get this historic set of facts wrong..

1. NO DEMOCRAT VOTED FOR A....WAR....please make that WAR with 100 font letters
2. NO DEMOCRAT VOTED FOR THE OUSTING OF SADDAM.
3. THERE WAS NO REASON FOR WAR....OR REGIME CHANGE.
4. MORE WEAPONS WERE DESTROYED DURING THE 10 YEARS OF INSPECTIONS THAN DURING DESSERT STORM...AND SADDAM HAD NO MEANS TO DEPLOY WMD. PERIOD. END OF ARGUMENT CONCERNING HIS THREAT TO THE US.
5. BUSHCO VERY CLEVERLY THREW UP THE VOTE FOR "THE USE OF FORCE", FOLLOWED IMMEDIATELY BY THE CONCEPT OF REGIME CHANGE (YOU HAVE 48 HOURS TO LEAVE TOWN), COUCHED IT AND SOLD THIS AGENDA VERY DELIBERATELY AS PART OF THE SMOKE AND MIRRORS OF FEAR THAT IRAQ POSED A NUCLEAR THREAT.

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. This is interesting.

No matter how many or who agreed with the Iraq intel, it was BUSH and BUSH alone that gave the order to go into Iraq.

No further discussion is needed. It was BUSH that pulled the trigger.

[Postman]

2. nice catch.

eom

[KaryninMiami]

3. Well stated. But why aren't the Dems (for the most part)

stating these facts- and stating them loudly. Since no Democrat voted for the war-- then why did John Edwards apologize? Since the Democrats did NOT see all of the evidence (since the evidence against going to war were conveniently not shown), why aren't they speaking the truth? We have an opportunity here and an opening that we've never had before. Why are they not taking the offensive (as Bush and Co. are now doing) and stopping this verbal bullying head on instead of being silent or rolling over?

Why are they being so quiet? The country wants the truth and they want us out of Iraq. Wouldn't this be the perfect time to take control and run with this?

[karynnj]

7. I think there were differences in Senators' actions beyond voting

Edwards was a co-sponsor of the IWR and was pretty solidly behind it. When Bush invaded, Edwards still bought that it was necessary and in early campaign explorations in 2003, he was the most pro-war except for Lieberman. So for him, he is very honestly saying that he now thinks going to his vote and going to war was wrong.

Kerry was in the group of people who worked to get Bush commitments to go to the UN and to limit the reason to go to war to disarming Saddam of WMD if he refused to let inspectors in. As can be seen in Kerry's floor speech, he cites several promises Bush and Powell publicly made. Kerry spoke out loudly against Bush invading after Bush said he was going to invade on the eve of the invasion. So, for Kerry - Kerry's statement is very honest. He never voted for war except under the conditions specified in the amendment that weren't met. So there are 2 sets of Bush lies - on the dangers and on what actions he would take.

Others like Lieberman seem to be saying that they would still vote as they did.

[bullimiami]

4. For me its sad that they were warned. Many members of congress stood

and spoke eloquently and honestly about the mistake that was about to be made.
they spoke about the twisted distortions and false patriotism that was being exploited.

sad that so many totally blew it and voted to give this little hitler a rubber stamp to destroy the world. they should have known, yet not knowing they should have been cautious. they jumped in head first and hit concrete.

i dont forgive them, they need to fix what they allowed to break and apologize for the mistakes they made.

[FloridaPat]

5. Regime change is illegal under international laws. * was suppose to

report back to congress before he invaded anyone. He sent them a letter about 4 hours before he issued the order -assuming the order was actually issued on TV.

[Gold Metal Flake]

6. Can someone check me re: the

Resolution text:

http://www.hnn.us/articles/printfriendly/1282.html

I figure * is in violation of Sec. 3, (b), (1). Also note that in the Whereas section it refers to those countries that were involved in 9/11. This represents another way that Bushco is in violation of the section referenced above. There are other violations of the Whereas clauses. Basically, * was to exhaust all other remedies before using war powers. He did not ever try to do so. It was a bait & switch.

[wadestock]

8. great comments

I was thinking today about the demonstrative differences between going to WAR and simply the "authorization to use force".

Authorization to Use Force
------------------------------
1. Was sold under the context that Saddam had stonewalled inspections.
2. Was assumed to largely mean that we would put pressure on Saddam to reveal potential sources of WMD.
3. Could have meant a large range of potential military options....such as "forced" inspections.
4. Would clearly not have SPECIFICALLY MANDATED REGIME CHANGE...and could have encompassed iteratively more effective negotiations...followed by more and more world wide support for our LOGICAL intentions.
5. HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO MANIFEST ITSELF BECAUSE THERE REALLY WASN'T ANY MISSILES POINTED AT THE US. IN OTHER WORDS...WE HAD ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD TO WORK A SOLUTION. AS A MATTER OF FACT THE CONGRESS WAS PROMISED THAT BUSH WOULD PROCEED CAREFULLY WITH THE USE OF FORCE. DEMOCRATS SIGNED ONTO THE USE OF FORCE BECAUSE OF THIS CAVEAT.

WAR
------------------
1. Was a specific means to turn a switch with the American people and co-opt their support for a supposed world wide anti-terrorist campaign.
2. Unleashed a specific taking out of Saddam coupled with a complete annihilation of the entire Iraq army...every artillery piece...every tank...etc...to the point that they would never be able to resurface as a country that would have the potential to defend themselves (hmmmm...means we have to stay their indefinitely????)
3. Means re-election for second term....no incumbent president has ever been defeated in time of war.

HUGE DIFFERENCES AREN'T THEY%%$#@!@#@???

TRUTH
-------------------
1. 10 years of inspections and mass weapons DESTRUCTION in Iraq took away Saddams ability to DEPLOY WMD. There were no photographs OR ANY COMPELLING EVIDENCE (remember we can survey down to 1m resolution now with our satellite imaging) to show THERE WAS ANY IMMINENT THREAT TO THE US. Does anyone remember the Cuban missile crisis where we had clear photo evidence of intent??$%$#@!

2. Bush could not risk "forced inspections" because they already knew that there was no evidence of WMD. In fact...there was only the ability to "RECONSTITUTE" programs that had died years ago.....


SO....WAR......WAS THE ONLY OPTION
BE VERY CLEAR ON THIS SPECIFIC INTENT TO GO TO WAR