What happened in Oct. 2002???

[CTLawGuy]

I seem to remember one reality while others after the fact see another. I wonder what people on DU remember from 2002.

[CTLawGuy]

1. Kick

NT

[blm]

2. Go straight to the bottom line - If IWR forced Bush to go to war

then the IWR is to blame.

If Bush VIOLATED the IWR to go to war then he is to blame.

Why add all the chickenfat, darboy? That poll won't get my vote, because the chickenfat is in there to distort the actual bottom line, just as Rove intended.

Blame the IWR and you let Bush off the hook for VIOLATING it.

[CTLawGuy]

4. only if you get rid of yours

On Oct 16th, 2002, George Bush, according to the revisionists, signed a resolution into law making it HARDER to do what he wants to do. Then, supposedly he violates it to do what he allegedly, by the revisionists, could have done anyway without the resolution.

Why not just go to war riding on his post-Sept. 11th popularity without Congress?

[blm]

5. Because Rove knew certain lefties can be counted on to jerk their knees

reflexively against their own side.

[CTLawGuy]

7. you mean the majority of dems in both the House and Senate

who thought it was a blank check (see Robert Byrd), as well as the thousands of Dems who called into Congress, jamming their phone system (I remember that day, I remember faxing my senators), begging the Dems not to vote for the IWR?

Yeah, certain lefties.

[blm]

12. So admit it - YOU blame IWR and Bush was NOT violating it -

in fact, according to you, Bush was doing the job assigned to him by the IWR when he invaded Iraq.

Go all the way with YOUR view, darboy. Don't hold back or add any chickenfat to it.

You don't hear Kennedy and Byrd blaming the Dems who voted for it - they understand that some odf them were negotiating the better resolution and HAD to vote for it - and some were process voters - they understand process.

If you need an example of "process" voting, it's what Feingold does on the judiciary - he believes giving a president the benefit of the doubt in PROCESS and believes even Bush has the right as president to choose who he wants for courts and is loathe to vote against any president's choice.

[CTLawGuy]

16. most "process" votes don't result in 2000 dead soldiers

we need to expect more.

IWR does not REQUIRE him to go to war. Nice strawman. He still chose to go to war, and some Dems just (unwittingly) helped him. Most Dems did the RIGHT thing and refused to help him.

Looks like you and your two friends already voted, congratulations :-)

[blm]

20. IWR did not take this country to war - Bush's VIOLATION of the IWR took

this country to war.

There is no two ways about it, as hard as you try.

[CTLawGuy]

21. how DO you violate the IWR???

did he forget to give a 60-day report?
Did he accidently give his determination to the Governor of Hawaii rather than Congress?

I have the whole operative bill in Post 15 and I don't see how you can violate it other than those 2 ways.

[lillilbigone]

25. By submitting a fraudulent and false determination to Congress.

Lying to Congress is a crime, of course, it is hard to keep track of all of Bush's crimes.

[CTLawGuy]

28. that may violate other laws

but the IWR does not require a determination based on correct facts, it doesn't require any facts at all.

[blm]

31. Bush had to SAY national security was at stake - he LIED

You certainy go out of your way to buttress Bush's position.

But then, you also trust Bush's explanation on B-L, too - as if B-L would have stopped war anymore than IWR did.

Sorry, but I am unimpressed with your explanations always coming down on Bush's side reIWR.

[CTLawGuy]

35. why do you repeat the same false talking point that i am siding with Bush?

Bush would have actually violated B-L the instant he changed the point of the war from WMD to "freeing the Iraqi people". It may not have stopped the war, but it would have forced Bush to show what a lawbreaker he is.

[blm]

45. You refuse to acknowledge regime change WAS the US policy since 1998

and THAT is why your assessment isn't based in reality.

[lillilbigone]

33. That's utter nonsense.

If what you are saying were so, every phrase in every law requiring any report from the President would need to be qualifed by the phrase, "and it must be truthful". :eyes:

[CTLawGuy]

36. a "determination"

is an opinion, not a statement of facts. The facts on which they are based do not even need to be presented to Congress (or if I'm wrong, your proof will be in Post 15), and they do not need to be true according to IWR.

[blm]

38. Exactly - this whole thread is becoming absurd, imo.

.

[CTLawGuy]

39. well, then leave

then it will be less absurd

BTW, I am beating you 19-5.

[blm]

47. Media lies will always protect the proBush side. I'll stick to the truth,

because the truth doesn't change, even when the media spins for you and Bush.

Pretty pathetic that you believe that is a win for you.

Pretty damn pathetic.

[CTLawGuy]

58. I think Kerryite apologists

are pathetic.

Go into the archives of DU from 2002 and show me where anyone on DU made the argument that voting for IWR was a good idea, that it would make the war harder to prosecute, especially you or anyone else on this thread.

[ProSense]

62. See posts 46 and 48 for the facts. n/t

[blm]

79. It was BETTER than what Bush originally wanted - and that point was

made many times.

You dislike process, too bad. Bush was going in anyway and the IWR did curtail hthe arena to Iraq and got in weapons inspectors which he didn't want either.

Try using context. One that includes an ENTIRE picture. Some of those Dems stuck NEGOTIATING the deal got better than Bush wanted but had to vote for their version in return.

YOU don't understand that or don't want to - Byrd and Kennedy do and that is why they don't attack the Dems who voted for IWR the way the kneejerkers do.

Why anyone on DU puts so much energy into protecting Bush from blame when he violated the IWR to have his war is simply puzzling. Puzzling and disgusting.

[blm]

26. Your problem is you base it on YOUR assessment. I side with John Bonifaz

and others who see that Bush violated IWR when he made his decision AFTER weapons inspectors told him there were no WMDS . Bush lied in the process when he said in his letter to congress that force was necessary for national security - completely ignoring the weapons inspectors put into Iraq by the IWR.

YOU side with Bush that he was doing his job as per the IWR and I conclude that Bush was in violation of IWR.

YOU are the type of Dem Rove uses to keep the party divided. He counts on Dems like you who will blame the process and the party more than you will demand Bush be held accountable for violating the process.

[CTLawGuy]

29. which section of IWR as printed in Post 15...

does Bush making a determination that war is necessary after inspectors said "no WMD" violate?

Where is WMD mentioned in any of the operative clauses?

I see "threat" and "enforcing UN resolutions", not "WMD".

[blm]

53. Enforcing UN resolution was all about WMDs and weapons inspectors.

Surely you must have known that with all your exhaustive attention to this issue?

And what part of John Dean's argument posted by JDPriestly don't you understand? You poo-pooed me and others here at DU, and John Bonifaz....how about taking on John Dean?

[CTLawGuy]

55. Im not interested in what John Dean has to say

what part of the resolution did Bush violate?

There is no requirement that the "determination" be based on accurate information, no recourse in case it is not.


You have John Dean, I have the resolution text.

The text is binding law, John Dean's book is not.

Why would Bush sign a resolution that would hamstring him, especially if he (supposedly) had the inherent power to make war? Is that consistent with how Bush acts? Of course not. He would certainly not sign a resolution from Congress unless he felt, politically or legally, he needed to.

[blm]

57. I have John Bonifaz and John Dean - You have YOUR interpretation of IWR.

You also seem to be the only person who believes that B-L would have miraculously stopped Bush from war simply because Bush dismissed it at the time.

Uh....Bush also thinks Texan is a language.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You also skipped over the FACT that the UN res referred to in the IWR were all about the weapons inspections and diplomatic efforts. Too inconvenient for your argument, obviously.

Bush also signed the McCain-Feingold bill fully aware that he and his minions would never be tied down by any of the guidelines. They know they have the media under control.

They certainly use the media to push the knee-jerk buttons.

[CTLawGuy]

59. you love strawmen don't you

I think B-L would have forced him to explicitly violate the law and would have made it hard for him to simply switch the rationale for the war at will.

I have the damn text, you have crazy crackpot theories.


Oh BTW, hows that poll looking?

[blm]

60. You love YOUR opinion and dismiss John Bonifaz and Dean because you can't

handle the truth.

Feeling smug are you?

I dare you to try that poll after putting up John Dean's explanation and then your own and ask people which is true.

Wanna play catch with a fireball, scarecrow?

[CTLawGuy]

61. Ill raise you a Bob Byrd

a decorated, accomplished, wise, senior senator from West Virginia.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.24B.Byrd.tonkin.htm

"Byrd warned of another Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Passed on Aug. 7, 1964, that resolution handed President Lyndon Johnson broad powers to escalate the war in Vietnam, a conflict that cost 58,202 American lives and millions of Asian lives.

"Congress will be putting itself on the sidelines," Byrd told the Senate. "Nothing would please this president more than having such a blank check handed to him. "

Byrd said his belief in the Constitution will prevent him from voting for Bush's war resolution. "But I am finding that the Constitution is irrelevant to people of this administration."

Byrd said the proposed resolution Bush sent Congress on Thursday would be the "broadest possible grant of war powers to any president in the history of our Republic. The resolution is a direct insult and an affront to the powers given to Congress."

"

So now, lets look at the scorecard

Me: the actual text of hte BINDING LAW signed by Bush, which no one has been able to say what part has been violated.
I also have Robert Byrd who has been in the Senate longer than ANY Democrat, and who should know about lawmaking, and who was around for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

You: John Bonifaz, who's that?
John Dean, former Nixon lawyer, hasn't been in politics for years.

I also have a 27 - 7 lead

[ProSense]

65. Here's a statement from Byrd.

December 19, 2005

No President Is Above the Law

Snip...

The President claims a boundless authority through the resolution that authorized the war on those who perpetrated the September 11th attacks. But that resolution does not give the President unchecked power to spy on our own people. That resolution does not give the Administration the power to create covert prisons for secret prisoners. That resolution does not authorize the torture of prisoners to extract information from them. That resolution does not authorize running black-hole secret prisons in foreign countries to get around U.S. law. That resolution does not give the President the powers reserved only for kings and potentates.

http://byrd.senate.gov/newsroom/news_dec/law_for_all.html

I do believe it was established long before the war that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush violated the IWR.

[CTLawGuy]

68. That is not referring to IWR

but that is referring to a resolution passed in the weeks after Sept. 11th giving Bush the power to use force to eradicate terrorism.

It passed the Senate unanimously and only Barbara Lee (D-CA) voted against it.


IWR was opposed by 23 senators and about 150 or so Dem House Members.

[ProSense]

76. So you're saying

That this was unanimous vote on a resolution giving Bush authorization and making it easier for him to:

to spy on Americans, create covert prisons for secret prisoners, authorize the torture of prisoners to extract information from them, authorize running black-hole secret prisons in foreign countries to get around U.S. law?

What's the difference between this authorization and the IWR? Each granted bush powers with specific restrictions.

Rules were laid out, Bush violated those rules.

[CTLawGuy]

78. Did bush violate that specific resolution

yeah, it doesn't let him spy on Americans to fight terror. Bush is no question a criminal.

I am talking about the separate resolution passed a year later to give Bush the power to go to war in Iraq, which has nothing to do with spying on Americans.

[ProSense]

80. Yes: both resolutions, both violated. Bush is a criminal, that is all. n/t

[CTLawGuy]

67. Rep. George Miller (CA) 10/8/2002

"But I suggest to my colleagues that if we do it in the manner which was presented in the resolution, not only do we undermine the idea of working with the United Nations, I believe that in the long term we undermine our position in the world and our moral authority to conduct these activities. I think when we combine this with the announcement by the Bush administration of its doctrine on national security of preemptive strikes, preemptive war, it is a declaration of war. Be it preemptive or be it defensive, it is war. That is what it is about. We can dress it all up into fancy policy language, but the question is whether or not American men and women will be called upon for that sacrifice to this country. ...

The President can argue, as he has, that he wants this resolution for a number of different reasons. He has said that he wants it to have a regime change. Later, he said he wanted it to disarm Saddam Hussein. He now says that he wants it simply to get leverage against the United Nations so that they will do what he has asked them to do, what he has quite properly asked them to do.

But, at the end of the day, we will be saddled with a vote to declare war on Iraq. I say this because this is the same administration that was arguing that they did not have to come to the Congress because, from the resolution that we passed in 1991, that they had inherent authority to do this. So I suspect you will be living with the results of the vote here for a long time to come. "


So thats:
the law, Byrd and Rep. Miller

vs.

Bonifaz, and Dean.

[blm]

72. They are talking about Bush's execution of IWR - not discussing IWR vote -

How thick do you want to go?

YOU do NOT HAVE IWR speaking - you have TWISTED IWR interpretation to EXCUSE BUSH, just as the corporate media has.

You address NOTHING of Bush's execution of IWR and bend over backwards to take the blame OFF of Bush and onto the Dems.

SCREW THAT GOP TACTIC - it stinks to high heaven and you add to the stink by spreading it.

Byrd doesn't question the integrity of those Dems who voted for IWR and therein lies the big difference - he wouldn't back up your BULLSHIT accusations.

And you didn't even KNOW that the references to UN resolutions was even about weapons inspections, so please don't act all superior with your poll just because the CORPORATE MEDIA spins for Bush and your view.

You should be ashamed of the rampant ignorance you encourage.

[CTLawGuy]

74. he's discussing the nature of the resolution

this was before the vote.

How dense are you?

[blm]

75. I said BONIFAZ and Dean were talking about the EXECUTION of the IWR and

not the vote itself - and that was what the discussion is all about.

You will say anything to avoid the truth.

You are a DIVIDING presence and I have nothing but distrust for dividers.

You feel so smug, put up Dean's analysis of Bush violating the IWR and your claim that the IWR was a blank check so Bush had nothing to violate - see how you do then.

[CTLawGuy]

77. you are welcome to put up a competing poll with your analysis by John Dean

I am not a dividing presence when I tell the truth about the nature of the resolution, rather than putting post-game spin and candy-coating on it.

I trust Bob Byrd and George Miller and Ron Paul over John Bonifaz and John Dean any day.

[CTLawGuy]

71. Ron Paul 10/10/2002

"I oppose the resolution authorizing military force against Iraq. The wisdom of the war is one issue, but the process and the philosophy behind our foreign policy are important issues as well. But I have come to the conclusion that I see no threat to our national security. There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war.

But I am very interested also in the process that we are pursuing. This is not a resolution to declare war. We know that. This is a resolution that does something much different. This resolution transfers the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the Congress to the President so he can declare war when and if he wants to. He has not even indicated that he wants to go to war or has to go to war; but he will make the full decision, not the Congress, not the people through the Congress of this country in that manner. "

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=5660

[CTLawGuy]

56. where did he violate the law?

please cite text and explain his violation of it.

It's in post 15, which you love to disregard.

[JDPriestly]

46. Bush's report in response to the IWR

merely repeated the points he was supposed to respond about. It did not provide substantive answers. It did not provide the information that Congress had demanded. Bush went through the motions of responding to the IWR but did not, in fact, do so. His response was a sham. I'm ashamed of DUers who are so poorly informed that they think that the IWR actually authorized the war. IT DID NOT. GO READ THE AUTHORIZATION RESOLUTION. I believe that John Dean's book Worse Than pages 146-151 and Alterman, The Book on Bush, page 276.


I quote a little from Dean's book:

page 140: "When it came to the war against Iraq, Congress was deceived, just as the American people were, only what happened with Congress deserves a very close look because it reveals that Congress did not give the administration a blank-check authorization. In fact, Bush deliberately violated the very authorization that he sought from Congress, which was not merely a serious breach of faith with a trusting Congress but a statutory and constitutional crime." -- John Dean

page 142: "And on October 10, Congress overwhelmingly approved a resolution authorizing a war with Iraq. But there was a kicker in the authorization: Congress conditioned its grant of authority on a formal determination by the president of hate United States that there continued to be a threat that could not be dealt with through diplomacy and that his actions were consistent with the war against those involved in 9/11 -- a detail unreported in the news media. It was because of this agreed-upon language that the Democratic leadership was willing to support the resolution." -- John Dean

page 148: Authority to go to war was conditioned on Bush's showing evidence that "further diplomatic means alone would not solve the 'continuing threat' (meaning WMD) and . . . the military action was part of the overall response to terrorism, including dealing with those involved in the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." -- John Dean

Bush responded by repeating certain legalistic findings of fact in the authorization legislation that really weren't findings of fact. Bush insisted that Congress had found these facts to be true. In fact, the "facts" were merely the words contained in prefatory whereas clauses in Congress' resolution. Basically, Bush and the Republicans appear to have played a trick on congressional Democrats to get the appearance that Congress consented to the authorization to go to war. That is not what the legislation meant to the Democrats voting for it. The Democrats thought that Bush could go to war only if he met the conditions in the legislation. I suspect the reason Democrats don't argue much about this is that they feel stupid and foolish for having fallen for Bush's trick. The momentum of propaganda would have made it difficult for Democrats in Congress to resist the war. Read the Dean book. You will find out what really happened. My explanation does not do his book justice.

[blm]

49. THANKYOU - I hadn't read Dean's book and this perfectly explains how

Bush was in violation of the IWR.

My guess is that no matter how many people point this out, the OP isn't interested in the truth.

[JDPriestly]

50. Judging from this post and the responses,

neither are some supposed Democrats.

[blm]

51. That's why I fight the perception - it was spun this way with the intent

to divide Democrats. They know their audience. They helped create them over the decades.

BTW....Your post deserves its own thread. If even I missed Dean's words, no doubt many others did as well.

It would certainly help educate those innocently unaware of the specifics, too.

[CTLawGuy]

63. I printed the fucking resolution

it requires a determination (an opinion that war is needed) and reports to congress. It doesn't specify what is to be in the reports, or specify any facts upon which the determination is to be based.


There is no requirement of a show of evidence, Dean is wrong.

[ProSense]

66. No you are wrong and loosing your cool! n/t

[CTLawGuy]

69. I'm sorry

dealing with people in denial is very difficult.

[ProSense]

48. To clarify

The IWR laid out a set of criteria that had to be met and specifically stated that Bush could only go to war as a last resort in the face of an imminent threat.

Bush's violation: He ignored the criteria and started a war without the existence of an imminent threat to the United States.

In the face of an imminent threat, the War Powers Resolution gives Bush the power to go war before consulting Congress, he just has to report back. And even though Bush manipulated the evidence, Congress learned of this long before the war. As a result, several Democrats issued stern warnings to Bush not to take action. He did it it anyway.

Linking Iraq to WMD, along with Bush's repeated linking of Iraq to 9/11, created the impression of an imminent threat to many in the public. That's why he enjoyed high public support.


To reiterate, the IWR did not supersede the War Powers Resolution, which gives Bush the authority to go to war without consulting the Congress. Bush could have legally gone to war after consulting Congress, even if the IWR was voted down.

The resolution was specific, Bush violated the specifics. The resolution was in line with the WPR, but it was not a declaration to go to war. It was an authorization to to use force providing specific conditions were met and only in the face of an imminent threat.

The WPR allows the president to go to war without prior Congressional approval. As in the 72-hour period required to file a warrant for surveillance, Bush only needed to report back to Congress after executing a war---provide justification so to speak. He could have taken that route, the Republicans in congress and most of the country was behind him. He would have done it and it would have been a done deal. By the time Bush had to report back, that "Mission Accomplished" statement would have already been made.

So the IWR was an attempt to hold Bush accountable, it specifically stated the steps Bush had to take before considering the use of force when all other options for a peaceful solution were exhausted and a clear and imminent threat was present. Without the resolution he would have defied Congress. With the resolution he not only defied Congress, he defied the specific criteria laid out by Congress.

Sec. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad
(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

snip...

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/warpower.htm

The last great debate over presidential war powers

Truman's decision became the precedent for the unpopular Vietnam War (1961-1975). By 1973, the war-weary Congress challenged the President's war powers, concerned it had lost all power over the unending war in Vietnam, by introducing a sweeping War Powers Resolution

This resolution, designed to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President" are involved in decisions to use American military forces, acknowledges that a President can start a war without Congress -- so long as he advises Congress he is doing so. Then, if Congress does not either declare war or otherwise authorize the use of the military within 60 days from the start of the hostilities, the President must terminate such use of the military.

Over the veto of a Watergate-weakened Richard Nixon, the War Powers Resolution was adopted. But presidents have largely ignored it.

The War Powers Resolution, moreover, seemed to have pleased no one. Liberals, for example, criticized the resolution for permitting the president to unilaterally initiate hostilities for 60 days, before Congress can exercise its constitutional powers.


http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/columns/fl.dean.warpowers/

[blm]

52. ProSense, please read JDPriestly's excellent reply.

It certainly will be a timesaver in the future. I only hope it is reposted as its own thread.

[CTLawGuy]

64. the resolution merely asks for his opinion that war is necessary

it doesn't require explanation of reasons why he came to his opinion.


And why would Bush sign a resolution that hamstrung him?

Why, after Sept. 11th when he was invincible, would he even entertain a resolution that was NOT a blank check?

That's not Bushlike behavior.

[AtomicKitten]

70. The IWR gave numbnuts free reign - which was a mistake.

It is clear the IWR intended going to war should be a last resort after exhausting other more prudent measures, the mistake was leaving it to the idiot boy-king to make that determination. Once the ink was dry, all bets were off.

IMO the resolution was a mistake because it was used as ammunition against the Dems, implying it made them complicit.

[CTLawGuy]

73. Right on my friend!

It gave Bush what he wanted when the Dems should have been standing up to him and demanding an actual case based on actual evidence.

[blm]

81. See JDPriestley's post above. You let Bush off the hook every time

you repeat that meme.

IWR had guidelines - Bush VIOLATED those guidelines. The media spun it so IWR sounded like Bush had fee reign, when he did not. But by doing so, they made certain most media would not question Bush and he would not be held accountable for his violations.

[CTLawGuy]

82. This'll be useless but..

Care to elaborate using the text of the resolution from Post 15?

[AtomicKitten]

83. Technically you are correct.

but it was a slippery slope. You aren't seriously suggesting any of the Dems had any reason to hope that that idiot would NOT violate the IWR? It was clear war with Iraq was where he was headed.

And although Bush violated the technicalities and spirit of the document, I believe our Dem congresspeople are accountable for extending his leash and, by doing so, they have given the appearance that they were complicit which is why that fucker probably will not be prosecuted for the illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq.

Oh, don't get me wrong. It's all a dog and pony show that technically isn't correct, but it's slippery enough to give him cover. Think of all the times he's said he had congressional approval (the last the NSA spying) when he did not. Nobody ever corrects the SOB, so even though we know he is wrong, by default he is perceived as being correct.

The Dems were the big kids in this sick scenario and I expected them to say a resounding "hell, no" when asked to abdicate their constitutionally mandated responsibility of declaring war.

[blm]

85. Not as clear behind the scenes as you think. Many in DC believed Bush1 had

more influence on the decision-making than he did - they believed Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell would have more significant sway than they did, especially since Scowcroft was Condi's mentor - Condi ended up siding with Cheney.


Democrats should be screaming for impeachment BECAUSE Bush violated the IWR - technically and in spirit. Unfortunately, the story was twisted and spun against the IWR as if Bush was only doing what Congress told him to do. And they use the left to make sure the issue stays obstructed.

[CTLawGuy]

86. The Iraq War was a war crime

regardless of any resolution. International law does not care, when a country aggressively invades another, whether it was legal in that country.

The Nazi invasion of Poland was legal in Germany, but it wasn't legal according to the Nuremberg Court.

The only real effect of the IWR was to entangle Congress in the responsibility. But, Bush can still be impeached for the war. Impeachment is a political process and not a legal one. It could be done when a new Congress comes, unemcumbered by complicity and says, "Bush you violated international law, you invaded a sovereign country without provocation and you lied about it. Now you are gone."

Granted it would be politically easier to impeach without the existence of the IWR (so Congress doesn't look like hypocrites) but it can be done.

[AtomicKitten]

87. Yahtzee!!

Democrats should be screaming for impeachment BECAUSE Bush violated the IWR - technically and in spirit. Unfortunately, the story was twisted and spun against the IWR as if Bush was only doing what Congress told him to do. And they use the left to make sure the issue stays obstructed.


And that is what the Republicans do so well - muddy the waters.

Still the Dems in Congress were the stopgap to this evil plan. It was they that should have done their jobs and stopped him. They had to know where he was headed; we did. And regarding that others thought there were WMD, indeed that is because of the handpicked intelligence, but I find it hard to believe that anyone thought the danger was imminent.

The bottom line is that the Republicans have successfully muddied the waters such that the blame isn't clear to most people. I agree with your assertion, however. Unfortunately America for the most part is not capable of understanding nuances.

I can see ultimately Bush being nailed for this, but it will take a Democratic take-over of the House and a special prosecutor. I pray that happens in 2006.

[blm]

88. I think they ARE capable, but media pretends that nuance, itself, is the

enemy of America. Every other civilized country in the world PRIZES nuance in their leaders. But, nuance is used AGAINST the intelligent forces in this country to stifle their voices - by, guess who, the GOP and their mediawhores.

[CTLawGuy]

6. Bush is to blame both under the true assessment and the revisionist theory

The IWR, in reality, allowed Bush to make the choice to go to war by giving him the approval of Congress so he doesn't look like a blatant dictator. Bush made the choice and the Dems helped him to make that choice and were wrong.

In revisionist history, Bush violated IWR and therefore is to blame.

[blm]

10. HAHAHAHHAHA....so did B-L and that was OK to you. You can't

honestly say that stripping down the facts to the bottom line is revisionism - it's the exact opposite of revisionism.

Leave the Orwellian tactics to the GOP, please. They COUNT on posts like yours to muddle up the bottom line and distract from Bush's crimes.

[CTLawGuy]

11. B-L limited action to getting rid of WMD

It was a hell of a lot better than IWR.

Bush said that B-L "ties my hands" and was against it. Hence, it didn't pass. funny how that works when the president's party controls congress.

[blm]

13. BS - Regime change was ALREADY policy for the US - they didn't NEED

to add it to the IWR or to the B-L version of the iWR. It was already policy since 1998 and even Kucinich voted for that policy then.

Chickenfat isn't very nutritious.

[CTLawGuy]

17. regime change != illegal unilateral military invasion

I think if Bush felt he had the authority to just go to war, he would have.

[blm]

18. Oh yeah - nothing Machiavellian at all with Bush-he's a straightshooter

Media sez so.

[CTLawGuy]

19. apparently Kerry thought so

becuase he "trusted" Bush. Ridiculous. What's your response to my Post 15?

[blm]

22. My response is that YOU are what Rove needs - a leftie who blames

Democrats and the process in hopes that they will obscure the facts and blur accountability so Bush escapes accountability for his violations of that process.

[CTLawGuy]

24. I'm sorry are you talking to someone else.?..

Of course I blame Bush but I can also blame, at the same time, people who helped him.

In criminal law, prosecuting the getaway car driver does not absolve the guy with the gun of his responsibility in the bank robbery.

You can't wrap your head around the fact that Kerry made a mistake that he himself has apologized for. So you choose to invent your own reality.

I know the Dems have been failing us lately, but the solution is to assert our power in the party and not to rationalize.

[MrModerate]

3. Certainly a huuuuge miscalculation and more than a little . . .

Craven.

Dems wanted to have it both ways -- to appear "strong on defense" and to be "facing up to the Chimperor."

Instead, they got dinged (rightly) for being both cowardly and ineffective. At the time (things have gotten a tad better), they still hadn't figured out how to be a working opposition. And they were shitting their pants about Bush's approval ratings.

They should have known that the bloodthirsty chickenhawks were going to shit all over Iraq -- hell, I figured it out from reading San Francisco newpapers, not exactly the most in-depth insider publications -- that Schimpanski was going to invade as soon as he could mobilize, no matter what.

A little more backbone then would have gone a long way.

Then again, Wellstone showed backbone and look at what happened to him.

[jobycom]

8. Kind of a mix of the two. It was a compromise to limit Bush and strengthen

Congress. Bush was saying he could go to war without Congressional approval, and that we had to invade right then. The IWR, supported by many Democrats and in spirit by Wesley Clark, authorized Bush to use force in case all diplomatic efforts failed. The key Dems, like Clinton, Kerry, and Clark, who supported such a bill (Clark supported a bill like it in his speech before the House Armed Services Committee in September 02, though of course he didn't vote on anything), stated they were doing so to send Hussein a strong message to disarm, so that the US would appear unified against him, and he would have to disarm. Clark stated that the more nearly unanymous the bill was, the better.

It was a victory, in that it reaffirmed limits on Bush's power. It slowed the invasion effort, and required Bush to go to the UN. It also required Bush to build a case for war, and in building that case, Bush lied to Congress and the UN, and outed Valerie Plame to protect his lies. So, if not for the IWR, we would not have had Fitzgerald and Plamegate, for what that's worth. And if not for the IWR, Bush would have invaded sooner, and we might now be trying to stop him from invading his third, fourth or fifth country (Afhganistan was first, Iraq was second).

The IWR was bad, though, because it was based on a lie that too many Dems believed--namely, that Hussein had WMDs and was trying to get nukes. Too many Dems trusted it. The Dem Senators on the intelligence committee mostly (or all?) voted against it, because they had seen that the CIA had doubts about the intelligence--doubts which were not expressed in the declassified documents the rest of the Senate saw.

So the intentions were good on the part of the Dems, and many moderate Repubs, and the bill did delay the invasion. If we had stopped Bush, we would all be praising the IWR as a "ballsy" move. But Bush violated the spirit of the IWR, and probably the letter, and clearly manipulated evidence to go to war. If he's ever convicted or impeached for that manipulation, we can thank the IWR. But I opposed the bill at the time, and still say it should have failed. I didn't trust Bush or his intel at the time. Too many people did. It did give Bush the appearance of national support, and the subtleties and distinctions became too hard to explain to the average voter (even on DU some don't get it). Thus, Clinton has to sound like she supported the invasion, but now realizes she was wrong. That makes her a harder sell (And I'm sure Rove anticipated that). I don't condemn the Dems who voted for it--many of them had the right, anti-war intentions--but I respect those who voted against it much more.

[Peace Patriot]

9. The other thing that happened in October 2002 is that Paul Wellstone's

plane fell out of the air for no good reason; the FBI took possession of the evidence; and there was no public hearing, as there normally is for the unnatural death of a US Senator.

AND, one hundred and thirty-three* Senators and Congresspeople voted AGAINST giving Congress' power to declare war away to George Bush, despite the fear in the air, that year, that was so pungent you could smell it all over the east coast.

FEAR!

---------------------

*One hundred and thirty-one MORE than voted (2) against the "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution in 1964. We've got some very courageous people in this Congress (those who survived the first wave of Diebold elections in 2002). (And if you don't think fear was a factor in 1964, just remember that JFK had been assassinated only ten months prior to that vote.)

--------------------

As for the poll above, it was a mixed bag of fear and pro-war corruption. So I can't vote on it. I don't believe that anyone was fooled. Technically, some Dems can argue that they were. But I think it was more a case of PERMITTING themselves to be fooled, to avoid getting anthraxed or Wellstoned (or Diebolded). (That is, the ones who were not voting their war profiteer pocketbooks.)

[Lerkfish]

14. quite frankly, it ultimately didn't matter.

as we've seen, Bush thinks himself above or apart from the law.

[CTLawGuy]

15. The IWR broken down

bold notes are mine

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

<[Page 116 STAT. 1498>]

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - >>

** "Whereas" clauses redacted, operative clauses shown only. **


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

already doesn't sound like something that restricts war

<[Page 116 STAT. 1501>]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

"supports efforts" != "requires" no real restriction here.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

criteria is solely his judgment and the scope of authorized actions against Iraq are unlimited by this clause

(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.

it makes Bush tell his "determination" to Congress, not give a good reason, or apparently any reason, why he determines it. There is no provision for questioning or overruling this determination. Still nothing making war harder to make.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) 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.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

says the law is meant to comply with War Powers Act requirements for a authorization of force. No restriction on war power here.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> Reports.--The President shall, at least
once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant
to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are
completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

<[Page 116 STAT. 1502>]

(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission
of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission
of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report
required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the
requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Talks about making reports to Congress. We're sure showing Bush who's boss. :eyes:

Approved October 16, 2002.

Bush signed this bill. I wonder why, it lets him do what he wants

Can someone tell me how this resolution might have prevented the war, or made it harder to execute. Cause I see nothing.

[jobycom]

23. In their own words...

Clinton:

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

snip

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster... If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.

snip

A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

=========================

Kerry:

I believe the work we have begun in this Senate, by offering questions, and not blind acquiescence, has helped put our Nation on a responsible course. It has succeeded, certainly, in putting Saddam Hussein on notice that he will be held accountable; but it also has put the administration on notice we will hold them accountable for the means by which we do this.

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

=====================

Clark (His whole speech is a wonderful read, full of support, criticism and prophecy):

Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President's clear determination to act if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts.

snip

The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

====================================

Clearly, each was pushing Bush to exhaust all diplomatic efforts before invading, and clearly each believed Bush's lies about WMDs.

[CTLawGuy]

27. I'm sure all of those people had good intentions

but my resolution text, which is binding law, is more convincing than your speeches, which are not.


If I sign someone's death warrant, but I say I am signing an order to give him a medal, and then he is killed pursuant to my warrant, should I be excused because I said I signed it intending to give him a medal?

[jobycom]

32. False analogy

They knew what they were signing (or supporting, in Clark's case), they weren't signing the wrong bill. What they were doing was crafting a tool that was supposed to be used one way, but was used another. I was against the IWR, but I'm equally (and I do mean equally) against people who are trying to destroy the Democratic Party by condemning everyone who voted for it equally with the Republicans who supported the invasion.

Instead of the death warrant analogy, compare it to a gun maker. A gun maker can make a rifle for hunting deer, can advertise it as a rifle for hunting deer, and the thing can still be used to kill a person. Does the gun maker bear some blame then for making the rifle? IMHO, yes. But is he as responsible for the person's death as the person who pulled the trigger? I would say no.

I have a lot more respect of and trust for those who opposed the IWR. But I don't condemn those who voted for it in the same way I condemn those who carried out the invasion. The latter are consigned to the pits of Hell, the former are in purgatory. Those who can convince me they were fooled and who do something to make up for their mistake, I'll let off the hook--meaning, I could still support them. Some Dems who voted for the war were so pro-war that I don't let them off. Lieberman and Biden, for instance. John Edwards and John Murtha are still on the fence for me. They've made nice noises since the invasion, but both were pretty damned gung-ho for too long.

But the bottom line, in relation to the OP, is that many who voted for the war were trying to stop Bush from invading immediately, unilaterally, and without any diplomatic efforts. For many, the IWR was a chance to slow down the rush to war. The wording authorized the invasion, no question. But in the face of Bush's claims that he could invade without any approval or restrictions, the bill limited him. Another analogy. There's a medieval law which says a man can kill his wife and her lover if he catches them in bed together, as long as he does it before they leave the room. This sounds like a law allowing the murder of women. However, it replaced the old tradition of allowing a man to kill the wife, lover, and lover's family if he suspected they had had an affair at any time in the past. The first law is not so good, but it's a lot better than what it replaced.

[CTLawGuy]

34. Your second analogy is false

because the president has never actually had the authority to invade a sovereign nation whenever he wanted to, no matter what he or anyone else thinks. So IWR is not "better" and even if it were, why would Bush sign it, if he believed he could make war without its authority? and why would 215 house republicans and 48 senate republicans vote to restrict their glorious president's power in the war on terror?

They wouldn't, and that essentially eliminates the "it restricted war" argument.


your first analogy of the gun maker is also false. That shows two different targets, of which the gun maker has no reason to know of the intended unlawful target, whereas the authorization and the subsequent supposed "violation" dealt with the same target. A real analogy would be "a gun dealer gives a gun to a person who, while walking into the store says he is thinking about using it to kill someone. If the gun dealer gives him the gun and says "don't kill anyone", he would likely be criminally responsible if the man does kill someone.

He would be guilty of a crime called "involuntary manslaughter". He knew, by hearing of the killer's probable intent to kill someone, that there was a substantial risk that someone would be killed. He disregarded that risk (showing a reckless disregard for the value of human life) in selling the gun, and because of that sale, the killer was able to kill. Both he and the killer would be responsible for the death.

The killer would be guilty of murder, which is worse than IVMS, but both are serious crimes.

[jobycom]

40. It's flawed, but you are wrong on the president's authority

You're right, my second analogy is flawed, but you focused on a different aspect of it than I was trying to demonstrate. No big deal, analogies are always flawed, since they are never the actual case.

But the president is not forbidden by the Constitution or US law from invading other countries. Congress has the power to declare war, but war isn't defined in the Constitution. Washington himself used the troops to put down the Whiskey Rebellion without authorization from Congress. Many presidents have used troops without a formal declaration of war. The precedent has been set. Bush was trying to push the precedent even further, and the IWR was clearly (and explicitly at the time, don't forget) a bill to tell the president he could not do that. The language wasn't written into the bill, but the purpose of the bill, as was discussed quite a bit at the time, was to make the president consult Congress.

The Dems would have wanted to prevent bush from invading, whereas the neocon branch of the Repubs wanted the president to be allowed to do whatever he wanted. The Dems did not have the votes to stop Bush or the Republicans, but by promising to give Bush a nearly unanimous bill, the Republicans agreed to put some conditions on Bush's invasion. This wasn't a secret, it was openly discussed at the time. Thus, the Dems put some breaks on an invasion that was going to happen anyway, and the Repubs got bipartisan support to pressure Hussein to "disarm."

Bush was going to invade, with or without Congressional approval. And we can go all "strict interpretationist" of the Constitution all we want, but we both know that if Bush had invaded after the IWR failed, he would not have been punished for it. The only way we were going to stop Bush was for Congress to specifically forbid him, and that still might not have worked, and it wasn't going to happen, anyway. Bush claimed the previous Iraq treaties gave him the authority to invade, and there was no force in America that would have successfully challenged that interpretation.

The IWR put restrictions on what Bush was claiming he was going to do anyway. The restrictions didn't amount to much, but we didn't have the power to do more.

[CTLawGuy]

42. assuming arguendo what you say is true

why would 215 repub house members and 48 repub senators support it and Bush sign it? If it just restricted him, why would they do that?

[CTLawGuy]

37. my analogy

is simply meant to show that actions count and intent does not.

[jobycom]

41. Mine was meant

only to show that intent does count.

[CTLawGuy]

43. if it does count it's not for much

intent doesn't influence binding law.

If Kerry thought that voting for IWR would restrict Bush and it really doesn't, the fact that it really doesn't restrict Bush prevails. We might only see Kerry as misguided rather than callous, but we'd acknowledge that he made an error in judgment.

[Acryliccalico]

30. Kick..........n/t

[Cocoa]

44. many of Bush's lies came after that vote

for example the famous "16 words."

ergo, Bush still had to make his case after the vote.

[karynnj]

54. Good point - It was not UNTIL the inspectors were in

and were making statements and reports that it was known with CERTAINTY that there were not WMD in Iraq. By March, it was clear that the reason Bush gave was false - and when it was clear he intended to invade, Kerry was among the Democrats telling him not to. THe protests at this point were large, though a majority still favored war.

The Bush administration has untruthfully argued that Congress had the same info before the IWR vote. The Democrats have answered this well, but they should add that by March there was FAR more information available - and that is when Bush went to war.

[eridani]

84. "Strong military" = meaningless phrase

It's one of these bullshit terms like "partial birth abortion," intended to obfuscate rather than clarify.

We can make it meaningful, though, by adding just a couple of words. A military strong enough to do what? Conquer the rest of the world and force them to use all their natural resources for our benefit? Not only a bad idea in a practical sense, but an ethical abomination. Strong enough to defend "American interests"? Are you interested in making the world safe for $0.25/day labor? That may well be in the interests of the Pioneer Club, but it damned well isn't in my interests.

Strong enough to defend our borders and protect our population? This is the only option that makes any sense at all for most of our population. The Brits and the Soviets had to give up on imperialism last century because they couldn't afford it. Neither can we.

Unluckily, even anti Iraq war Dems seem to be reluctant to declare an end to the bipartisan post WW II consensus in favor of dominating all the poor countries of the world. George Kennan, US Cold War Planner (1948 NSC-68 document --Source: Naval War College Review, Vol. XXVII (May-June, 1975), pp. 51-108. Also in U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: 1950, Volume I), and widely considered to be a liberal, summed it up thusly.

We have 50 per cent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality . . . we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation.

[question everything]

89. Other - Senator Paul Wellsone died in a plane crash

still mourning of what could have been