Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Was it a mistake to give Bush "authority" to go to war if necessary ?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 08:57 AM
Original message
Was it a mistake to give Bush "authority" to go to war if necessary ?
Perhaps that is the question that should be asked? The Founders do not look so stupid in hindsight, do they? They created the Constitution with the Congress to have the power to declare war for a purpose. The purpose being that there might be a Commander in Chief that thinks like George W Bush. Perhaps Congress should take back their authority before they hand their balls to Bush in a bloody silver cup?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lottie244 Donating Member (903 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. An unqualified "Yes."
Acting as an adult and admitting mistakes might be a start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. Only in hindsight!
As I recall, what got inspectors back into Iraq was a combination of UN Resolution 1441 and the Congressional authorization to use force. I think once the inspectors were on the ground and doing their job, a collective sigh of relief went out. I don't think any of them expected Bush to do anything but the typical thing of aiming the gun to force a behavior change. I doubt they expected him to invade and outrage most of the US's traditional allies.

I don't fault them for thinking that the combined foreign intelligence units of the US and UK knew more than a bunch of geeks sitting at keyboards. They were wrong. I think they know that now. They didn't expect the combined intelligence units of the US and UK to lie. They know better now.

Kerry may or may not succumb to the hubris that kept us in Vietnam for 10 years after it became obvious the war was unwinnable, that more men and bombs and dollars would win it. We know what Bush will do, and it is unconscionable. Kerry may surprise us. Bush will not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IdaBriggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. I agree with everything you said!
Its what I've been saying for a while now -- Bush lied to Congress when he said it was a "last resort" -- everyone thought he meant it. :( Ida
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. He lied to Congress ??
Isn't that impeachable?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IdaBriggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #20
48. No, that's only if its about sex!
Joking! :) Ida
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apnu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #11
43. not hind site with me...
In fact, I no longer can have a political discussion in my office with the repugs here. I went on the record saying that Iraq would end badly and it would totally screw up Afghanistan. This was during Powell's big circus act at the UN.

I've been proven perfectly right that now the repugs avoid me. They are afraid I'd prove them wrong again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 08:58 AM
Original message
Does a bear shit in the woods?
We need to fire the Congress NOW for dereliction of duty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
2. Obviously. But it would ALSO be a mistake for Kerry to say so now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
44. in for a penny
in for a pound.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amber dog democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
3. Its a mistake to give the Chimp anything
Edited on Wed Aug-11-04 09:00 AM by amber dog democrat
beyond a one way trip to Crawford.
He was not elected, is not qualified, and can't be trusted.
Maybe let him be dogcatcher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
4. It is the question. And it was a mistake.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-04 09:00 AM by wurzel
I fault Kerry and the rest of the Democrats for supporting so obvious a fraud as Bush. No different than the Republicans supporting that obvious crook Chalabi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
displacedtexan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
5. Congress gave "a president" or "the president" the authority...
... not just one guy named Bush*.

Who in Congress (who might someday run for the presidency) wouldn't give "a president" or "the president" such authority?

Just because you have the authority, doesn't mean you abuse it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Robert Byrd tried to explain it....
The power to declare war rests with our Congress, and should not be handed over to any "president", Democrat or Republican. It's the Constitution. I know it's not important...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. "Declare war" vs. "Go to war"
The terms are a little confusing. In most cases, presidents just order military invasions or strikes and there is no "declaration" from Congress. They're able to do that from the War Powers resolution of 1973, explaining the rationale within 48 hours, etc...

Congress didn't empower the Chimp with the IWR as much as they got onboard with support and prevented themselves from trying to stop him later, if they even could have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #9
23. Absolutely: At most it should have given him the means to preposition...
Edited on Wed Aug-11-04 09:36 AM by Junkdrawer
troops. The authority given was far too broad for the task.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ready4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
6. 100% yes.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-04 09:01 AM by Ready4Change
The power to send a nation to war should never reside in one person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
7. It is a mistake to give Bush ANY authority.
Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcgregor Donating Member (12 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
8. The legislative body
backed the President, to give the Presisdent the power to go to war.

Where to rest the blame?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. They surrendered the power that was vested to them by the Constitution
And they gave it to Caligula... Yes, they did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cat Atomic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #10
28. Or Tiberius.
"How eager they are to be slaves", and that whole thing.

They shirked their Constitutional duty in passing that authority to Bush. It was one of the most pathetic moves I've ever seen. It was political cowardice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #8
24. Hi mcgregor!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcgregor Donating Member (12 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #24
32. Thanks for the welcome
Ya know it does bring a smile to my face!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
12. Would you have entrusted that power to George W Bush...?
if you had been in the Congress. I would not trust him any farther than I could throw him. He cannot be trusted. You think the Democrats did not see that in him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
13. It was a mistake for Bush to ask for it. Bush is the mistake America
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. People will always ask for more power.....
It was Congress' job not to surrender it to him. The more dangerous the leader, the more power he will seek.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #14
45. All that proves is that both entities made mistakes
But approval ratings determine the outcome. Bush played the shell game. Not the other way around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
15. If you favored weapons inspectors, you favored the IWR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #15
31. Just because you keep repeating this meme Will,
Doesn't make it so. Why was the threat of force needed to put inspectors back into Iraq? After all, the inspectors weren't kicked out in '98, they withdrew voluntarily.<http://www.fair.org/activism/usat-iraq.html >
And it isn't like positive talks weren't taking place to place inspectors back into Iraq.<http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/17/iraq.un />
No friend, the IWR was simply to allow Bush to run roughshod over Iraq, and ultimately conduct an illegal, and immoral invasion of Iraq. Saddam had good reason to be wary of inspectors, being as that the US had slipped in spies in previous inspection trips. He was needing some assurances that this wouldn't happen again before he would let the inspectors back in. Instead of working diplomatically, Bush, backed by the IWR, decided he had free rein to do what he wished in Iraq. Funny how a resolution supposedly intented to force inspectors in led to the inspectors being pulled out in favor of pre-emptive war.

Look friend, you can spin this all you want, but the IWR was a resolution authorizing Bush to conduct a war pre-emptively. And yes, there is blood on Kerry's hands due to his support of the IWR. You know that, I know that, and millions across the country and world know that. Does this mean that Kerry is as much to blame as Bush? No, but by his actions he allowed Bush to have free rein to do as he wished, and for that, he bears a portion of responsibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #31
47. A timeline on inspections
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm

You've linked an article from 9/17/02, but please take a look at this timeline for a broader perspective. Iraq went back and forth on allowing inspections full access, and there'd been a long history of that.

As for 1998, inspectors left "voluntarily" because Saddam wasn't cooperating and attacks were impending.

The IWR did help bring about a new UN resolution that in turn did succeed in renewing inspections. As you point out, Bush invaded anyway. But that was not the intent or purpose of the IWR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #47
53. Oh puhleeze friend, are you truly that far around the bend?
Are you saying that a resolution entitled the Iraq WAR Resolution wasn't intended to allow Bushco to go to war? If so, then you are spinning out of control and need to stop.

As far as the inspections go, read my FAIR link. You are correct, the inspectors were pulled out because of fear of an impending military attack. The attack was going forth because Saddam wasn't allowing cooperating with inspectors, he wasn't allowing them full access. Why? Because he rightly surmised that some of the inspectors were US spies. This later proved to be correct, as the FAIR article points out. Thus, we pulled out the inspectors and engaged the military because a sovereign nation wouldn't allow the US to spy on them.

And no, the IWR didn't bring about new inspections. Your own BBC timeline shows that. Hell, if the US hadn't been so insistent on putting it's own handpicked agents(ie spies) into Iraq, Saddam would have let the inspectors back in long before '02. Instead, he rightly refused to let US spies back into the country, an action that any sovereign country would do.

The full intent and purpose of the IWR was to hand Bush the authorization to start an illegal, immoral war against Iraq. To claim anything else is simply refusing to deal with the reality. C'mon friend, think! Millions of people, both at home and abroad, saw the IWR for what it was. Why couldn't Kerry see that, and his apologists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. "hand Bush the authorization"
What authorization did it give him that he didn't have before?

As for inspections, I'm not arguing that there weren't spies. I'm not arguing that there couldn't possibly have been new inspections without the IWR. I'm not even arguing that there wasn't already a long-standing threat of force from the UN.

The IWR was essentially a show of support or unity from Congress to lend weight to the effort to get the UN resolution. It also pre-approved the use of force at the president's discretion -- that's where the outrage lies, as I see it -- but he already had that authority. As I understand it, it preventing Congress from doing anything to stop him (if they even could have or would have) or anything to challenge him on it later, politically if nothing else. But I don't see how it gave him any legal power he didn't already have.

If you have different information, I'd appreciate knowing it. But please don't assume I'm saying things that I'm not, and please don't say things like "are you that far around the bend," if you don't mind. Thanks :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #54
61. Well excuse me friend, but how am I supposed to react
When some Kerry apologist decides to fly in the face of reality an post such nonsense that a resolution entitled Iraq WAR Resolution was really only meant to bring about the renewal of inspections? I'm sorry if I offended you, but that kind of spinning is truly out there, bordering on calling black, white and up, down.

And no, Bush did not have the authority to start that kind of war, that kind of authority only eminates from Congress, and with the Iraq WAR Resolution, Congress, including Kerry, handed it to him on a silver platter. Yes, Bush could have used his emergency war making provisio, but if he had, especially on a pre-emptive strike, the hit to him politically, both at home and abroad would have killed him, with impeachment then being a real possibility. He knew he needed Congressional approval, and thanks to the spineless Dems who couldn't even fulfill their job duties, he got it.

I'm sorry if I'm sounding harsh and cruel, please don't take it personally. I'm just fed up to here with people buying into this bullshit Kerry apologist spin. Millions of people at home and abroad knew what was going on, and counted on their represenatives to do their job and carry out the will of the constituency. Most, including Kerry, failed in that most basic of job duties, and willingly and knowingly aided and abetted in the deaths of thousands. That was what the Iraq WAR Resolution was about, not inspections, not resolutions, but WAR. And now we are stuck having to pick between two candidates who fully and knowingly backed an illegal, immoral invasion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #15
39. The 23 senators who voted against it didn't want inspections?
Nice try. But, that top don't spin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
18. Bush abused authority given to him by Congress, a Pres. Kerry would not!
Edited on Wed Aug-11-04 09:30 AM by flpoljunkie
That, my friends, is the difference! Even Scott Ritter maintains that inspectors would not have been allowed into Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein without the threat of force contained in the Iraq War resolution.

Bush acted in bad faith--all the while insisting that "war is my last resort"--and since he will never be impeached by a GOP controlled Congress, he must be voted out of office in November--so that we can restore "honor and integrity", "trust and credibility" to the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phiddle Donating Member (749 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
19. Is it a mistake to give a drunk the keys to your car?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #19
49. Hear, hear!
Chimp's background was well known prior to his inauguration. There was no basis for trusting him on any matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
21. absolute mistake
all of us at the protests knew it.
robert byrd laid it all out on the floor of the senate. he had made the mistake with vietnam and learned the lesson. few would listen.
kerry should have known it too.
he should admit he made a serious error in trusting these satan loving monsters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monte Carlo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
22. Saddam did not let the inspectors in because of his good nature.
He let them in and inspect his 'palaces' because, in a nutshell, a gun was held against his head.

In hindsight, sure it was a mistake, but with what he and we all knew at the time, it was a decision that Kerry had to make.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #22
65. he let them in because a gun was held at his head
and there were no fucking weapons. The kinds of things that Iraq was forced to do were things that no sovereign nation would willingly choose to do. They were things that were done only because the gun was held at the head, and their only purpose was to humiliate, bully, and antagonize an already defeated enemey that had not once done anything to threaten the US.

That's one of the most amusing things about the whole stinking wart in Iraq--Bush lied shamelessly and Sadaam was actually telling the truth.

There was no mistake about it. Kerry knew what he was doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kodi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
25. mistake? Art. 1, Sec. 8 only Congress can declare war
the entire congress defaulted on their constitutional duties to declare war if it was necessary.

the half-way measures that two generations of congressmen/women have foisted upon the nation are acts of true political cowardice.

they granted bush the right to go to war without declaring it. that is hardly conservative, nor does it adhere to any interpretation of upholding one's constitutional duty.

those who watched Robert Byrd on the floor of the senate in the fall of 2002 knew then what was at stake and it is the republic itself if a president can go to war without requiring to have it declared by the congress.

Osward Spengler was right, we have moved to the era of Caesarism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. Well said..
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. War Powers resolution of 1973
Congress "declares" war.

But presidents can (and often have) ordered military actions without Congress, explaining the rationale within 48 hours -- since 1973.

The IWR was an expression of support and unity, but one of the things it didn't do was empower Chimp with a "right" he didn't already have.

What they did do was remove their ability to stop it, or possibly even contest it, later -- because it was a sort of pre-approval, meant to give clout to the effort toward the UN resolution on inspections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #25
46. Wrong. The measure did not approve the war in Iraq.
It allowed force only after other measures were enacted. Bush reniged on the deal and wouldn't let the inspectors finish the job in the name of threats that were not evident, and later proved false.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hansolsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
29. Yes it was a mistake, and it was clear at the time. I cringed.
Face facts, big time kerry supporters -- if Shrub had been run over by a truck this summer and McCain or Hagel were on the Repub ticket, Kerry would be so far down in the polls, you couldn't find his scrawny ass with a flashlight.

Why is this election even close? Bush is the most failed president in the nation's history. If we can't beat this guy handily, who can we beat? The DLC triangulation strategy may drag Kerry across the finish line a few votes ahead of Bush, but so what?

I'll vote for Kerry but I won't celebrate his election -- that's where I stand today.

I would put an "Anybody but Bush" bumper sticker on my vehicle -- but not a Kerry / Edwards sticker. They make me sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
30. it is a mistake to put him in charge of manning his own fly
Edited on Wed Aug-11-04 10:09 AM by leftofthedial
in the little boy's room
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
33. Fucking A. Yes. Hell Yes. You know it. Assuredly. Positively.
Uh huh. Oui. Si.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truth2power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
34. I don't think Bush should be given authority
to go to the bathroom by himself. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
35. EVERYONE knew that Smirk was going to invade Iraq
the first time he started talking about it. No one believed he was going to back off if no WMD were found.

I remember it very clearly and remember emailing and faxing congresscritters asking them to slow down, back off, cool off, and stop the race to war.

Over a hundred congress critters did NOT vote for the invasion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
36. Wrong Question. Needed To Have Threat Of Force Behind Inspections
why is that so fucking hard for people to understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #36
66. what, 10 years of sanctions, regular overflights/bombings
an environment polluted for generations, and half a million plus dead and dying weren't enough? Iraq posed no threat. Why is THAT so fucking hard for people to understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
37. The IWR was a wedge issue designed to get Iranian Invasion authority...
in one of two ways:

1.) If Democrats opposed the IWR, the compliant press would have insured that most opponents (including a sufficient number of senators to obtain a majority) would be defeated at the polls.

2.) If Democrats supported the IWR (which a sufficient number did) then Bush got the authority.

Needless to say, it worked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enki23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
38. knowing it was george bush, then yes.
for most any other president, not necessarily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #38
42. While Junior is definitely the worst excuse for a "President" ever....
...I don't believe the vote would have been right regardless of WHO was in the White House, because of the Constitutional issue.

The constitution says Congress shall declare war. And that's the way they should leave it. War should never be one man's (or woman's) decision. Whether a moronic coward like Bush or not. Even a good President doesn't need that kind of power, and I would question the judgment of one who asked for it.

Logically, if the situation warrants a war declaration, a majority vote in congress shouldn't be a problem. Bush knew goddamn well that he would never be able to prove his case against Saddam, and would never get a congressional declaration of war.

What distrurbs me the most about this whole thing is not Kerry defending the vote, but Kerry defending the surrender of the authority itself. He thinks that one human being should have that power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #42
50. But it really wasn't a "surrender of authority"
because the president has been able to order military strikes, without first consulting Congress, since 1973.

Only Congress "declares war," but usually there's no formal declaration at all, as in this case. In other words, Bush could have done what he did without the IWR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
40. Absolutely. And yet the fools did it twice in order to launch two
unjustified wars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
41. Yes! And, Kerry saying he would do it again, is just as stupid.
All the spinning in the world isn't going to make it sound any better. He voted to support Bush's empire building, and now says he would do it again. With that statement he can't even try to play the innocent who was "misled".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #41
67. not Bush's empire building--US empire building
Kerry is all for that, just not the way Bush proceeded with it. Kerry approved of the goal, but not the technique.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. Quite right. Softer, gentler, colonialism.
Plundering and enslavement with a human face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Parche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
51. authority
It was the authority to use force, not war
GW Bush declared war by himself, without congress approval
And yes, Bush should not have any authority to do anything
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. Was there ever a formal declaration of war?
I don't think there was. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think "go to war" and "use force" and "declare war" are terms that are easily mixed up. It's been a long time since we had a formal declaration of war, as far as I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #52
55. No, there was no Declaration of War
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
56. No, it was the right thing to do
and I would have done the same if I were in Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zero Gravitas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
57. Big Mistake
The resolution assumed that Bush would only use force as a last resort and would act in the best interest of the nation. At the time it should have been obvious to anyone that Bush was incompetent and untrustworthy & in fact he lied about the rationale and evidence for the Iraq invasion and did not exhaust all other alternatives before going to war and furthermore executed that war in an incompetent manner. Kerry should just come out and say "knowing what I know now (that Bush is incompetent and a liar) I would not have voted to give him the power to attack Iraq at his discretion."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Bloode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
58. Yes, yes, and yes again......
We divided powers for a reason. I was particularly incensed at Kerry's remarks that in hindsight he would vote for it again.......makes me very sad :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
59. "Mission Accomplished!" Bush ploy to rile up anti-war vote against Kerry!
And it looks as if he is succeeding. Bush abused the authority given to him by Congress and the United Nations, yanked out the UN inspectors and "rushed to war"--as Kerry has repeatedly said.

Bush did not exhaust diplomacy; he lied when he repeatedly insisted, "War is my last resort." Bush acted in bad faith and is deserving of impeachment, but since that is impossible in a Republican controlled Congress, he must be held accountable by the American people and voted out in November.

We must restore "trust and credibility" to the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. Kerry voted for it, and said he would again. Pretty hard to spin.
If, as you say,

"Bush did not exhaust diplomacy; he lied when he repeatedly insisted, "War is my last resort." Bush acted in bad faith and is deserving of impeachment,"

Then why did Kerry say he would still vote for it, knowing what he knows now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #63
69. JK would have voted for the president to have the threat of force in IWR
Even Scott Ritter has insisted that the UN inspectors would not have been allowed to return to Iraq without the real threat of force--which the IWR and the UN resolution provided.

Bush abused that authority given to him by Congress and the United Nations. Answering the hypothetical you pose is pointless. What's done is done, and Bush must answer for the war in Iraq--it is Bush's war, not John Kerry's--and he must answer for it in November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScreamingMeemie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
60. Yes it was...
Just as many of us believed it was that day long ago...and many of us still believe. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
62. It was wrong to give him authority for ANYTHING!
I can't understand how ANYBODY, let alone Democrats - the supposedly OPPOSITION PARTY - could even TRUST this ahole.

But they do it - time and again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
64. If a person knew...
Edited on Wed Aug-11-04 12:13 PM by grasswire
...of the imperial intentions of the neocons in the Pentagon and the Vice President's office (and everyone in Washington did), then it is criminal stupidity for anyone to think Bushco would not go to war no matter what the Iraqis did.

The desires of Feith, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle and others were well known. The PNAC documents had been publicly available.

So it is deceitful for Congresscritters to claim that they expected Bush to simply use the resolution as a lever to get compliance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 30th 2014, 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC