you aren't listening to the responses. You just slap them down in your zeal to defeat John Kerry. You are well known here. I have read many of your responses to the numerous other posts on this. The rehashing of this issue with a factless argument is a desperate attempt to drag John Kerry down. However, if you insist.
By steering Bush back to the U.N. Kerry knew, and warned the White House repeatedly. The White House first sought to sanction invasion with the IWR, and made a token effort in the U.N. They later said the hell with them and pushed ahead to war.
Bush never had to come to Congress, but he did so to try to cover for his original plan to invade that he had had before 9-11. Of course everyone knew of his ambitions. But some Democrats in Congress, who saw that the IWR had enough support to pass sought to place restrictions on the presidents actions. Their only influence on the IWR was to seek to modify it or be satisfied with a 'no' vote which had no guarantee of stopping the president from doing anything.
Does anyone really believe that a 'no' vote by Congress would have kept him from committing troops. I don't. Look at the way he justified the invasion as the enforcement of 1441, even though the U.N. was clearly against him.
Don't let him off of the hook by foisting blame on a resolution that was designed to reign him in; one that he completely disregarded in his rush to war.
The power to commit forces was invested in loopholes in the WPA
The War Powers Act. The same authority that presidents have used for decades to commit forces for 60 days without congressional approval.
Bush wanted the cover of Congress. Save the provisions that Sen. Kerry and others had included about war as a last resort, Democrat's imput on that bill - which sought to restrain Bush and send him back to the U.N. - was reduced to a no vote. The bill doesn't mandate an immediate rush to invade Iraq. It actually mandates against that. Bush disregarded the intent of Congress, the American people, and the international community in his reckless rush to invasion and occupation.
Bush's position at the time was that 1441 was sufficient authority to do what he wanted. Also, loopholes in the War Powers Act referenced in the resolution, provided more than enough authority to commit forces for up to 60 days without congressional approval. In the unlikely event that the resolution would have failed, the president would have almost certainly moved foward with his pre-disposed agenda to invade and occupy. Congress would then be loath to remove those forces and retreat.
The resolution was seen by some Democrats, like John Kerry, as a vehicle to steer Bush back to the U.N. and hopefully forestall war. Indeed Sen. Kerry and others were able to get language to that effect inserted into the bill. That's where, in the public debate we effectively get to 'Bush lied'. Bush lied to Congress, the American people, and the international community in his reckless rush to war. Foisting the blame on a congressional resolution, which in part, sought to reign Bush in, takes the heat off of Bush. Bush pushed ahead. He had planned to all along. He had the power. The resolution was a minor detour.
How you define the pro-IWR vote as political expediency while at the same time advocating that a 'no' vote was superior.
What are you really arguing here? That more Americans were likely to agree with Sen. Kerry's vote, therefore he would get the political benefit of that? Was it clear at the time of the vote that Americans supported the IWR? If not, then where is the political benefit? How could anyone know what the politics would be a year from the vote?
If most Americans do indeed believe that his vote was correct then they will be more aligned with the argument of the senator and others that Bush pushed past the clear mandate of Congress which advocated in its resolution that the threat be imminent, and that Bush go back to the U.N. and exhaust the potential for international support. None of which the president did. He pushed past Congress, the American people, and the international community in his reckless, predisposed agenda to invade and occupy Iraq.
Bush wanted the cover of Congress. Save the provisions that Sen. Kerry and others had included in the resolution about proceeding to war only as a last resort, Democrat's imput on that bill - which sought to restrain Bush and send him back to the U.N. - was reduced to a no vote. The bill doesn't mandate an immediate rush to invade Iraq. It actually mandates against that. Bush disregarded the intent of Congress, the American people, and the international community in his reckless rush to invasion and occupation.
The resolution was seen by some Democrats, like John Kerry, as a vehicle to steer Bush back to the U.N. and hopefully forestall war. Indeed Sen. Kerry and others were able to get language to that effect inserted into the bill. That's where, in the public debate we effectively get to 'Bush lied'. Bush lied to Congress, the American people, and the international community in his reckless rush to war.
Foisting the blame on a congressional resolution, which in part, sought to reign Bush in, takes the heat off of Bush. Bush pushed ahead. He had planned to all along. He had the power. The resolution was a minor detour.
Does anyone really believe that Bush wouldn't have pushed past
Biden-Lugar with a wink and a letter to Congress?
Or for that matter, how would a 'no' vote restrain the president when he was crowing that he already had the authority to invade under 1441. He didn't go around the country waving the IWR as his justification. He doesn't even mention it in his boasting. What purpose does it serve to claim that Congress authorized him to unilateraly and preemtively invade and occupy. Nowhere in the resolution does it give him authority to do that. Nowhere in the speeches or rhetoric of any Democrat in the Senate, save Leiberman and Zell Miller, is support given for his reckless invasion. Nowhere. But some, in the pursuit of "political expediency" will attempt to hold Democrats who voted for the IWR as responsible for his arbitrary invasion. Bush would love to hide behind the vote, but he knows the IWR didn't give him the authority so he doesn't mention it at all in his justification. Only in the Democratic campaign do we foist the blame on Democrats for the sins of Bush.
Dean has been in the catbird seat
Echoing all of the popular proposals and positions, cherry-picking, and throwing stones, Knowing all the while that he would not have to vote on any of these issues. If he had any dignity he would'nt be sticking it to those who were tasked with the responsibility of crafting and actually voting for these bills.
Just remember:
In the public debate, you can't get to "Bush lied" effectively without declaring that he lied to Congress. Foisting all of the blame on the IWR let's Bush off of the hook for disregarding the provisions in it that mandated there to be an imminent threat before committing forces. He also disregarded the mandate to go back and work with the U.N.
I'm certain that he would love to blame Congress for his unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation. I won't.
My analysis of the IWR
"defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq"Doesn't this mean imminent threat? Didn't Bush exceed this authority?
____________________________________________________________________
SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.Isn't this stating that the authority is inherent in the old War Powers Resolution which presidents have gone around for decades. The authority is not inherent in the new resolution, the president already has that authority through the loopholes of the War Powers Act to commit forces. That is what this specific statutory authorization is stating, I believe. Hence:
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.___________________________________________________________________
Authority to proceed is granted by Congress under this legislation. (Bush could proceed anyway under the WPA for 60 days without congressional approval. In that event it would be unlikely that Congress would withdraw forces) Authority is granted, effective with a:
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.The president clearly disregarded the intent of this legislation which was to provide the threat of force to force Saddam to let inspectors in, and steer Bush back to the U.N. He wasn't inclined to go, sure. But the resolution sought to steer him back there. That is the rational for the support some Democrats gave the legislation.
Indeed some were able to insert language to that effect into the bill. John Kerry among them:
In back-to-back speeches, the senators, John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said they had come to their decisions after the administration agreed to pursue diplomatic solutions and work with the United Nations to forestall a possible invasion.
"I will vote yes," said Mr. Kerry, a possible presidential candidate in 2004, "because on the question of how best to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, the administration, including the president, recognizes that war must be our last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we should be acting in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein."
Mr. Hagel said the administration should not interpret his support or that of others as an endorsement of the use of pre-emptive force to press ideological disagreements.
"Because the stakes are so high, America must be careful with her rhetoric and mindful of how others perceive her intentions," Mr. Hagel said. "Actions in Iraq must come in the context of an American-led, multilateral approach to disarmament, not as the first case for a new American doctrine involving the pre-emptive use of force."http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/10/politics/10IRAQ.html?ex=1074920400&en=d3b91dfa96cba16c&ei=5070All efforts to stifle Bush's manufactured mandate to conquer were rejected by the president and his Bush league. Bush pushed past the mandate of Congress, the American people, and the world community and invaded.
Orwell would be facinated by the twisting of Sen. Kerry's words and actions by his opponents on this issue of the IWR.
Now some would have us believe that Sen. Kerry is a warmonger. They would have us believe that the liberal senator from Massachusets who is vigorously defended and supported by the duke of the party, Ted Kennedy, is a warmonger.
I always thought this was odd: Kennedy, who voted against the IWR supports Kerry, who voted for it.
But Tom Harkin, who voted for the IWR, is for Dean.
Kinda makes all of this vitriol over who voted for the IWR silly. Dean doesn't present Harkin as a warmonger because of his vote. Kennedy doesn't present Kerry as a warmonger because of his IWR vote. Clark doesn't bash Kerry for his vote.
Only on DU do we ignore these anomalies in our debate. We push on. Water's deep, but we push on.
The only one who was certainly running for president was Gov. Dean. It's easier to label his anti-war position as craven, considering his stated support for a similar bill which would have give similar guidance to Bush on Iraq. Bush disregarded all of the restraint counseled in the legislation. He would have likely disregarded the restraint intended in the alternative supported by Gov. Dean. If that legislation had passed Bush could still have committed our forces and proceeded to war.
If the alternative had passed and Bush had proceeded to war, would Dean be culpable. That's the question. What would have been different if the alternative that Gov. Dean supported had become law and then been disregarded by Bush? The governor would be no more complicit in the Bush's abuse of authority than Congress. The 'Blame The Democrats First' strategy will backfire. Foisting the blame on Democrats takes the responsibility off of Bush. He's the one who pushed foward with unilateral. preemptive war.
Ah God!
The petty fools of rhyme
That shriek and sweat in pigmy wars
Before the stony face of Time,
And look’d at by the silent stars;
Who hate each other for a song,
And do their little best to bite
And pinch their brethren in the throng,
And scratch the very dead for spite;
And strain to make an inch of room
For their sweet selves, and cannot hear
The sullen Lethe rolling doom
On them and theirs and all things here;
When one small touch of Charity
Could lift them nearer Godlike state
Than if the crowded Orb should cry
Like those who cried Diana great.
And I too talk, and lose the touch
I talk of. Surely, after all,
The noblest answer unto such
Is perfect stillness when they brawl.
-Tennyson
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
