THe only people who call the October Resolution a vote for war are those who have basically accepted Deans personal, and politically motivated opinion of it as political capital.. more important is how anyone can claim Dean fought against the attack in Iraq when before it occurred Dean stated.
Salon: On the campaign trail with the un-Bush
Salon (possibly in its death throes) pulls out a terrific profile of Howard Dean, the horse I'm backing for the Democratic nomination.
I have been concerned about his foreign policy stance. He's distinguished himself as the most anti-war candidate extant. But let's see how he says he would do it:
"As I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.
Easy to say at this late date, but imagine if we'd gone to the UN in September with a timetable, backed with a clear threat of unilateral action. I think things would have gone rather differently
http://www.howardsmusings.com/2003/02/20/salon_on_the_campaign_trail_with_the_unbush.htmlThen his other support for the Biden Lugar amendment:
Dean said he would have voted instead for the Biden-Lugar resolution, which he said supported disarming Saddam using multilateral action, and which did not call for a "regime change."
He said Bush had approached the Iraq issue from the wrong direction - he should have taken the issue to the United Nations first, before he threatened unilateral military action to oust Saddam.
http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/local2003/012303dean_2002.shtmlWell lets look at the October Resolution itself:
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.
(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.
(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.
http://www.kpid.dk/Iraq%20Resolution%20of%202002.htmDena continually misleads. The October Resolution does not call for regime change. It ONLY calls for unilateral action as noted in this section:
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.
So lets look at the difference between what congress did with the act and Deans statements.
The act sets NO time constraints on pursuing diplomatic or peaceful methods Dean sets up a very vague time giving the U.N. or Saddam thirty to sixty days, for the U.N. to either vote to support its own resolutions, or for Saddam to disarm. Dean does not state hear ANYTHING about making a case as to whetther Saddam does or does not have WMD's. The language of his statemenmt is clear that Saddam must disarm, meaning that the assumtion that Saddam is already armed is accpeted as true by Dean in the context of this statement.
Congresses statement in this act ONLY give Bush support for unilateral action in three set circumstances, that it can be proven that further diplomatic and or peaceful methods can be proven to be totally ineffective in enforcing national security, or that these methods are proven to be totally ineffective in gaining Iraqi compliance with all pertenant U.N. resolutions, cited in the beginning of the October Resolution.
Or, if it is proven that attack on Iraq is necvessary in order to prevent furtther terrorist attacks on the U.S. or any other nations, or active supporters of terrorist acts, particularly those responsible for 9/11, but not excluding other terrorist organizations.
So there are clearly set guidelines in the act that the president must meet in order for this act to be considered "A VOTE FOR WAR".
As in all things. Dean has lied for political expediency. As the Howard Dean of "Dean for America" is a fictional creation of Joe Trippi and Deans other campaign handlers, who told him when they took over his campaign that he must not reveal his actual conservative nature during the campaign, Dean has created an October Resolution that does not exist. He has lied, and his supporters swear on that lie.
As with the Clintons, the pointing of the finger at thier involvement in Whitewater (in which Trippi is said to have played a role) cost the U.S. taxpayers a ton of money, and the Clintons tons of grief, before they were finally found innocent of all wrongdoing. Dean and Trippi are soul mates in this, liars to the last, misleading many for political gain, and harming anyone who is innocent along the way.
The same is true of the October Resolution. The "VOTE FOR WAR" does not exist. It is simply a political diversion against those who are innocent of VOTING FOR WAR, in order to gain support for a mediocre candidate, who wants to divert everyone from examining his actual record as governor. Dean was a mediocrity. Worse, Dante created a special hell, the deepest darkest hell for the likes of Dean in the Inferno. It was the place reserved for those guilty of complex fraud.
It can also be called by its new name: Dean Campaign Headquarters.
SO MOLLY, WHAT VOTE FOR WAR...
The fictionsl creation of Howard Dena and Joe Trippi...
Or the real resolution which was rather strict in its inteded limitations on the president's actions.
Tell me, and then I will answer...
But I will tell you one thing. Even those who did not sigg this act, used the act in February as a basis to get the courts to order an injuction against Bush from atacking Iraq.
Dennis Kucinich, Shila Jackson Lee, the Reverand Jesse Jackson, and a team of constitutional lawyers used the act itself, citing that COngress required the president go to war with the U.N. or U.N. support alone, and the conditions that the act cited for unilateral action NEVER occured, so Bush had not met the terms of the act for use of force:
They further argue that none of the legislation passed by Congress in the wake of September 11, including last October's Iraq resolution, confers sufficient authority for the war the President is threatening. The October Resolution - House Joint Resolution 114 - purports to authorize the President to "use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines 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."" Plaintiffs' contention, based on the language and legislative history of the resolution, is that unless narrowly construed, this resolution would be tantamount to congressional abdication of its non-delegable trigger power and would impair separation of powers. And, they contend, such a narrower reading of the statute is plausible, as the statute appears to tie the start of hostilities to the progress of international diplomatic efforts, reflected in the resolutions of the United Nations, to bring Iraq into compliance. Thus, Congress's October Resolution can reasonably be read as expressing three ideas: (1) Congressional support for international diplomacy on the part of the executive; (2) Congressional authority for limited use of force to protect American troops; and (3) the inclination of Congress to provide the necessary assent if the Security Council authorizes the use of force.
Implicated in the questions raised by the suit are the larger debates over originalism and separation of powers that have recently occupied much attention in the Supreme Court. Clearly, clarifying constitutional meaning on the war powers question holds special urgency today.
But in Doe v. Bush the district court declined to join the debate at all. Instead, it opted out of the debate altogether, adopting the Government's position claim that the matter is a non-justiciable political question. Under the political question doctrine, of course, the judiciary declines to wade into certain supposed "political thickets," theoretically leaving the underlying constitutional issue undecided. But, especially given the nature of the debate, invocation of the doctrine - ostensibly to avoid decision - still adds "precedent" to the pro-executive side of the scale. Judicial demurral leaves a vacuum that the executive will fill on its own terms - thereby creating new facts to support its exclusivity claim
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew99.phpThe last paragraph states that the courts do not have any authority to rule these matters, and also, that congress itself does not have the authority to prevent the prsidents actions regarding war, but only to set terms by which the conres offers to ive the president support in such actions.
So in order for this act in any way to be considered a "VOTE FOR WAR" it must be agreed that the president met the terms set in the act itself. Exhausting diplomatic measures and this caussing the U.S. a national security problem or that the U.N . is found to be negligent in enforcing its own resolutions. Or proof or Iraq's complicity in terrorism.
Dean created a lie about the act. But his own Monday Morning quaterbacking and statements about what he WOULD do are so laugnable, as they if a president or Congressman were bound by the extreme laxity of Deans statements, Bush would have had all the autyhoization to go to war that he needed under Deans statements, to have began the attack on Iraq shortly after New Years of 2003.
The wording of Deans statements simply requires asking the U.N. to support its own resolutions, and if it refuses to wait 30 to 60 days for Iraq to disarm (odd, since he states days before and days after that Iraq is not armed, so how do you attack someone who is not armed withing 30-60 days for not disarming if they are not armed to begin with. Sheerest proof of Deans using the Iraq Issue for political capital in the most duplicitous ways imaginable)
So which act are you asking about. The actual one passed by congress, or the fictionalized abstract created by Howard Dean?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
>
>
>
