Congress AUTHORIZED the war - it did not ORDER * to declare war

[DesEtoiles]

C'mon George. That's why they pay you the big bucks - it all comes down to you.

[mike_c]

1. that won't cut it for me-- Congress gave Bush BLANKET AUTHORITY....

Millions of people marched in the streets worldwide. We knew how Bush would use that authority. You think congressional leaders didn't? Yeah, that's the ticket....

[DesEtoiles]

3. didn't John Kerry say "I didn't know he'd fuck it up this bad!" yup

[mike_c]

6. the same John Kerry who refused to call for an end to the war...

...thoughout the same campaign-- he parsed his own his famous "fuck it up this bad" remark by claiming that the war was vital for U.S. interests, and that he could win it. He simply did not have the courage to state the obvious-- the war was unnecessary, an utter waste of lives for no good reason, and he voted to authorize it. I have no sympathy for anyone who voted for the IWR who doesn't take full responsibility for their error-- and Kerry's statements about his "mistake" dodge real responsibility all day long. :puke:

[aquart]

9. Exactly.

We knew how it would be. How come they didn't? Our Dems want to pretend their hands are clean, THEY ARE NOT.

When I heard that my senators, from safe seat New York, voted yes, I felt stunned. Utterly betrayed. I still do.

We can't go forward pretending our "leaders" acted well in this. They abdicated. We KNOW they did.

I blame Daschle's piss poor "leadership," but my New York senators didn't have to go along. That's all they did. They went along. I will never give Hillary a primary vote for president. Ever.

BushCo played great game. They knew all the tricks to intimidate the opposition. And maybe how to bring down small planes.

But we didn't have to give in, rah, rah, rah.

THEY did it. WE let them.

[mike_c]

19. I hear you-- my NORTHERN CALIFORNIA senator betrayed...

...her constituents as well. It's hard to imagine a safer anti-war seat (notwithstanding the fact that NO dem who voted against the IWR has suffered any political consequences at all). Even her own staffers were stunned. Of course, now her husband is getting rich on war profits, but I'm sure that had NOTHING to do with her "yes" vote....

[babylonsister]

2. And therein lies the problem. He has never made a mistake

(well, maybe he messed up a little with Katrina, but he's a strong leader, doncha know!), so can't admit to one.

[Christa]

4. Playing the blame game - ho hum. nt.

[Mr_Spock]

5. Trying to use logic will get you nowhere

These folks work in an alternate universe...

[IndianaGreen]

7. Congressional authority means to go ahead

Congress passes appropriation bills every year, but it isn't until Congress passes budget authority that the different departments of government can go ahead and spent the money appropriated.

IWR was a war resolution that gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Bush went ahead and used the authority that Congress had given him.

Looks like everyone is a revisionist nowadays.

[Captain Hilts]

8. It was to give W a bargaining chip at the UN, to, ideally, prevent war.

The UN sat on its hands. More importantly, they kept their mouth closed when they should have been coming unglued.

Anan takes a chunk of the blame for errors of omission, while Bush made errors of comission.

[aquart]

11. Yeah, that's the weasel position.

And maybe it would have gone that way, if Bush had been a moral, trustworthy human being, like the Republicans were telling themselves.

BUT WE KNEW HE WASN'T.

And we gave him the power anyway.

Stop pretending the blood isn't also on our hands.

[readmylips]

12. bush/cheney/rove attacked the moral standing of the UN...

called it 'irrelevant.' Same as useless and georgie was going to war no matter what the fuck the world said.

[Captain Hilts]

15. Right, but the UN rolled over and played dead in sight of the challenge.

They should have been tougher about keeping the weapons inspectors there, etc. Anan should have come unglued about the whole thing, and he didn't.

Congress voted 'for' the power to go to war contingent upon his going to the UN first. He did, he was an ass, and Anan was a total wimp.

[readmylips]

10. Congress did not vote for war...only in case all...

other avenues failed. Bush stopped all avenue immediately and the world did not agree with him. Georgie said 'we'll do it alone.' Here we are now alone and in disgrace. Who is georgie blaming now; the democrats. What a fucking lunatic.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Congress gave Bush the authority for war

If you are in the military and a superior gives you authority to open fire, it means that you have the discretion to open fire without having to go back to your superior for approval.

[goodhue]

13. Just like BFEE authorized torture, they did not order it?!

Pretty lame distinction if you ask me.

[firefox]

14. It was a blunder by Congress.

And they had time to call it the mistake it was and take it back.

Sweep Congress Clean.

[welshTerrier2]

16. YES ... Congress AUTHORIZED war; they SHOULD NOT have

you can parse the words to serve any purpose you desire ...

the bottom line is that Congress gave bush the power, be it symbolic or Constitutional, to wage the war he always wanted to wage ... the vote enabled bush ...

the tragedy here was not that many Democrats necessarily wanted war but that they trusted bush with their authorization ... or perhaps they did NOT trust him but voted for the IWR because they were worried about the political fallout if they voted "no" ... either way, it was a HUGE mistake ...

they should NOT have authorized bush to go to war ...

[NYC Liberal]

18. Anyone who believed Bush had any other plans but war is an idiot.

Sorry, but it is true. He had been hyping it since 2002 with his lies and exaaaaaaaagerations about all of Iraq's supposed weapons and chemical and biological agents that could kill "thousands." For what other reason would he be doing this?

I am willing to accept anyone's acknowledgment that they were wrong, however. And several have done so.

[Old and In the Way]

20. So, it appears to be a consensus on this thread that the war was

Congress's fault, not George Bush, the only person who had the authority to commit the troops. Good to know.

[welshTerrier2]

21. the consensus is ...

that Congress should NOT have given bush the authorization to use force in Iraq ... this is NOT an either or proposition ... blaming Congress in no way excuses what bush has done ...

both those who trusted bush and gave their authorization and bush himself are responsible for this war ...

[Old and In the Way]

22. In hindsight you are 100% correct.

But, a year after 9/11 and no investigation, and you are a US Senator faced with the "evidence" as presented by this administration-

If there was 1 chance in 100 that your gut feeling that Bush was lying was wrong and there was a WMD that incinerated, say, Boston...how would your constituents feel about that "no" vote?

As a Democrat, would you trust this administration not to set you up? Afterall, I'm not convinced as to the level of this administration's complicity in 9/11. 3000 Americans died and, as far as I am concerned, the liability of those deaths lay squarely on this administration. Don't forget those Anthrax attacks that suddenly occurred while the Patriot Act was getting rammed down the throats of Congress. Lets say all the Democrats do what we asked...all voted "no". Then, kaboom, another 9/11 type event occurs. What happens next?

(1) Martial law...no question.
(2) No doubt Iraqi's are behind it, off to war we go.
(3) The Democratic Party? Done. Republicans and Big Media convince America (not DU, of course) that we are the Party of Terrorist Enablers.

That's what I'm thinking if I'm a US Democratic Senator having to vote for this IWR.....

[welshTerrier2]

23. plenty was known up front ...

the standard for war, the invasion of a sovereign nation, should have been that Saddam posed an imminent threat ...

as a Senator, could i justify invading a sovereign nation because i was worried bush might stage another 9/11 and we could get martial law or because of the political consequences? ... those might have been very real concerns but the international standards for war had to be adhered to ...

with me, it wasn't hindsight ... no one knew for sure whether WMD did or did NOT exist ... but we did know that Saddam did not pose an imminent threat ... he was totally contained inside Iraq for more than 10 years ... we knew, or at least i was absolutely convinced, that toppling Saddam would create a huge power vacuum ... i wrote on this extensively ... and finally, we knew, before the war, about PNAC ... we knew there was a crowd that was pushing bush I to go to Baghdad during the Gulf War and now they were pushing bush II to do the same ... we were or should have been skeptical about the "evidence" because it was clear they wanted war at any cost ... so, while hindsight has certainly added to our knowledge, there were substantial arguments BEFORE the IWR and BEFORE the war not to invade ...

the bottom line here is that there never was a plan to "win the peace" and there still isn't ... war should not have been approved without one ... and there was never adequate proof that Saddam posed an imminent threat ... the serious issues you raised about how bush might have exploited a "no" vote by the Democrats are not unimportant; bush and rove would seek increased power from any action or vote the Democrats took ... that's their whole reason for getting up in the morning ... but to vote for war without competent leadership, to vote for war when there had been so many indications bush was not credible (Kerry called him duplicitous) and to vote for war when international standards for war had not been met was just plain wrong ... btw, a majority of elected Democrats voted against the resolution ...

enough was known, and not known, up front to cast a "no" vote ... in the meantime, we're losing 2 Americans a day with another 6 or 7 critically wounded and, with the exception of a handful of progressives in the House, Democrats are willing to invest another year or more ... how can they do that with a duplicitous, incompetent CIC ??? they seem to understand that bush is neither honest nor competent and yet they support at least another year of war under his command ... it makes no sense to me ...

[Old and In the Way]

24. go read this......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5363118&mesg_id=5363118

I don't disagree with your assessment....I shared the exact same position on this. They hid the intel, they were talking mushroom clouds...would you risk the lives of thousands of constituents on what you knew? Granted, it was fabricated...but no one knew that with 100% certainty when the IWR was voted on. I thought Bush was duplicitous, I didn't trust him. I wasn't a Senator, though. If POTUS says there is a gathering storm and he has intel that we are hours away from an attack...do you assume the worst from the POTUS? Yes,in hindsight, if his name is George Bush...but he had yet to create such a precedent prior to IWR. Sets a hell of a precedent for future Presidents who may face a real threat, though.

The Democrats were obviously screwed either way, a real Hobson's Choice. But it is clear to me, reading Kerry's Senate Speech, that his vote...and I assume most Democrats (probably not Lieberman) put lots of qualifiers on their support. Bush chose to go to war, even though the UN was finding no WMD...he had no legitimate justification. He's slowly being exposed as the war criminal he is. Kerry laid it out today....Bush misled Congress on the need to invade and go to war on Iraq. Too late? Probably....but the whole intent of that vote was to set up the Democratic Party. I have no doubts that the same bastards who let 9/11 happen were fully prepared to let another event happen if they got a clear "no" vote from the Democrats. And, one way or another, Bush was going in....another attack here would have greased the whole PNAC plan.