Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

IWR Question

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
BGrier Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-04 07:42 PM
Original message
IWR Question
Some time ago I heard rumblings that not only was IWR possibly unconstitutional but that the requirements of the resolution weren't even met before Bush invaded.

I suppose if the latter were true, people like Kerry and Edwards would use it in their defense. Since they're not (to my knowledge), I'm guessing no such triggers existed in the resolution.

Can anyone shed any light on this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-04 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. The IWR Was a Blank Check
call it symbolic or otherwise, the Congress gave bush the go ahead ...

bush had a free hand to do whatever the hell he wanted to do ... and he did ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-04 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. the dems voted for the IWR
to avoid being pegged as "liberal" and unpatriotic. Congress has a responsibility to be a check and a balance on the president. They are not supposed to give Bush the power to screw up, watch him screw up, and laugh at him. It means 500 soliders dead. Congress is supposed to advocate for what is right. Kerry and Edwards failed to do that because of their own ambition
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-04 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. There were no restrictions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-04 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
4. The IWR resolution was full of "weasel" words...
that allowed Bush to attack as a "first" resort rather than a last resort, that allowed Bush to pretend to seek a diplomatic resolution rather than actually work at one. It is a sad commentary on Congress, imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MurikanDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-04 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
5. Here's another thread on the IWR topic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-04 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. The facts are right there for all to see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-04 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
6. Light. No heat.
Edited on Wed Feb-25-04 10:47 PM by bigtree
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
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.


____________________________________

(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

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=...

____________________________________________________________________


Was opposing Bush enough? Was that Congress's only responsibility?

My view and my aim is that Bush should be held completely responsible for pushing us into war. From his phony 1441 presentation to his phony briefings which exaggerated the threat from Iraq, to the phony information that his administration hawked in secret briefings with Congress. I don't see the value in allowing Bush to hide behind a congressional resolution that sought to stifle his manufactured mandate to invade and occupy Iraq.

Congress is the lever. They hold the purse strings. But the president has the ultimate responsibility under the Constitution for committing forces. If Bush can disregard Congress's mandate with impunity then what good is there in holding Congress accountable when the president ignores the law? Did the president even read the resolution?

Nothing in there says drop the U.N. and invade. It says the opposite. And he stepped around them.

The resolution was designed to get Saddam to let inspectors back in by backing the 1441 U.N. resolution with the threat of force. Inspectors were let back in and pulled when Bush rushed forward. If Bush had given the inspectors more time perhaps they would have taken the question of WMDs off of the table.

That was the effect of the resolution. Allowing the inspectors to reenter Iraq and proceed with verification. We could guess, but they would verify. Bush pushed ahead of Congress in his invasion. He cut the inspectors off with his rush to invade. No Democrat advocated that, save Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.

Why did Congress trust the president? What guarantee do we have that any elected official will follow the Law?

When Congress passes a resolution that mandates seeking swift action by the U.N. security council before proceeding, and proscribes working with the international community until it is determined that 'reliance on diplomatic of peaceful means alone" would not force Saddam's hand, that is the law. The president took an oath promising to follow the law.

Thus, as the resolution states:

(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) 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.



Didn't the president unlawfully disregard these provisions? Don't these provisions represent the restraint that I maintain is implied in the resolution. Isn't this actually a case of the president pushing past Congress, the American people, and the international community in his race to war?

These are the foremost provisions of the resolution that I believe involves the president and his word.

1. Defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

According to who? According to what evidence presented. Doesn't the administration have an obligation to present the threat in a accurate and truthful manner? Did they? Weren't they obligated to under this resolution?


2. Enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

U.N. Res.1441 was negotiated with bogus evidence presented by Powell. But the public still doesn't know the nature or the amount of evidence presented. Some were convinced some weren't. You can see in John Kerry's floor statement that he didn't abide risking the possibility that Iraq might restart a nuclear program, remote-controlled bombers, whatever. That was on the basis of bogus info.

But remember, there were no inspectors inside Iraq to verify anything. One of John Kerry's intentions in the resolution was to pressure Iraq with the U.N. resolution backed up by the threat of force. It worked until Bush pushed ahead and drove them out again. Those who would hold the president accountable are indebted to Hans Blix for his presence there and his candor.

The authority to commit forces is not inherent in the IWR. That authority is contained in the War Powers Act which decades of presidents have used to commit forces for 60 days without congressional approval. I believe that Congress would be loath to remove forces after they were committed.

The only input that Congress had to the president's rush to war was a 'no' vote, which I don't believe would have restrained the president, and to attempt to place restrictions on the president's behavior through a resolution.

Some Democrats saw the resolution as a way to restrain Bush and send him back to the U.N. My candidate was desperate to stifle Bush's argument for immediate invasion and sought to mandate a return to the international table by limiting Bush's authority in the resolution.

Whether or not the resolution had passed, Bush was intent on invading and occupying Iraq. He had gone around for days proclaiming that 1441 gave him the authority to do whatever he wanted.

If the resolution had failed, the president I think, would have committed forces anyway as decades of presidents had also put troops in the field for 60 days without congressional approval. In that event, I believe, the Congress would be loath to retreat and remove forces. Then, by law a resolution would have been drawn up, likely resembling the one we have now; urging Bush back to the U.N. and calling for internationalization of the conflict.

That is how determined presidents get us into war. Check and checkmate. It's democracy-lite. It stinks, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to restrain a president from committing forces because of the loopholed prerogative inherent in the War Powers Act, which is referenced in the IWR. I believe that the only way to effectively direct him is through some sort of resolution passed by Congress.

It is possible that a unified front of opposition to the resolution could have turned the public against the plan to invade. But I don't think that was at all possible with the republican majority in the Senate, and in view of Bush's plan to invade with or without congressional approval.

Sen. Kerry and other Democrats didn't feel that the president would be restrained with a 'no' vote. They sought to influence his behavior through the resolution.

Bush's position before, during and after invasion was that 1441 gave him authority to do any thing he wanted to in that region. He wanted cover, but the IWR doesn't give him cover for his unilateral, preemptive invasion. Nowhere in the bill does it mandate what he did.

Bush disregarded the restraint implied in the resolution and pushed past Congress, the American people, and the world community in his predisposed zeal to invade and occupy Iraq.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-04 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Excellent post.
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 Fri Aug 29th 2014, 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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