enforce all relevant United Nations Security CouncilBut inspectors did go in. They had no complaints. The UN never said that Hussein had failed to comply.
resolutions regarding Iraq
So instead of bitching about who voted for the 2002 Act, we should be saying: "Hey, the law wasn't the problem. Bush broke the law. That's the problem."
Why haven't Hillary, Obama, Kerry or the others made that point?
28 comments:
"But Hillary...! Corporate whore...Chief Architect of the war...Bush/Clinton Crime Family... DLC... Vince Foster... Mena Airport... Whitewater... Protocols of Zion..."
That was the first thing that made me wonder, wonder in a big way what *the hell* was going on. After that, I delved into 9/11 and the rest is personal history.
I live in Holland. Mark Steyn triggered me first to react across the pond with his Eurabia bullshit.
After that I just wanted to discover where these US politics with these newfound empire tendencies came from. It still exists. Does it have something to not being part of the african/european/asian landmass?
Cheap shopping for me in NY, nowadays.
To answer, or propose an answer as to
Why haven't Hillary, Obama, Kerry or the others made that point?
I have to competing theories in my head. (typical gemenon)
The first may seem a bit much, but I get the feeling that the main reason there is little talk about calling the war a criminal act, and subsequently revoking the current administrations policies and freedom of movement outside a jail cell is simple. There are Dems who want that kind of power, because you know they can handle it correctly. Just trust them, they'll respect your freedoms and rights better. In another life I was a
anarchopunk , and never trust a politician was an understatement. But I digress, it seems reasonable to me that so many politicians won't do the correct thing as required by our constitution, because they want that toy called power.
Or maybe the powers that be realize that this could open up a minefield in the Hague. Imagine this on the worlds stage, and those who did nothing to stop it or supported it were forced to give testimony if not defend themselves. Hell that would play right into the hands of the alex jones-bots rant that we are a prison planet with the UN as our jailers. Would 'our boys' be investigated for war crimes, not just the politico's.
Oh yeah, the other anarcho thought. They are just a bunch of week willed liberal pansies who want to look good shopping at a whole foods in their prius's, instead of taking real action.
As far as the Clintons all i have to say is mark penn. Excuse me, but that guy is a cunt!
When US entry into the UN was being debated, a Senator pointed out that the UN was a war organization not a peace organization. Korea, Vietnam and both Iraq wars were justified by UN resolutions.
To question US membership in the UN is not within the bounds of permitted discussion.
Should Americans tire of endless UN inspired wars, McCain has an outfit called the "League of Democracies" warming up in the bullpen.
To the deleted anon...
I'm sorry, but you seem to have read a post that was substantially different from the one I wrote. I did NOT ask "Hillary or Barack: Which is better?"
I talked about the 2002 Resolution.
My ultimate point is this: Instead of knocking the thing, why don't we all embrace it?
And why didn't the Democrats use it as the basis for impeachment?
For a while there, everyone was scrambling around looking for a clear-cut case of Bush breaking (not bending) a law.
Well, that was it. 2002. Right there. Sections 2 and 3(a)(2) -- read 'em yourself. W just plain broke the law.
So let's stop blaming Hillary, Pelsoi, Kerry and Edwards for voting for the thing. Let's blame them for not enforcing it!
anon of Holland gets it pretty right, though it's not political power as such, it's presidential authority as such. The Congress and the Supreme Court are loath to restrict it b/c it would trigger a Constitutional crisis. Kerry, HRC, and Barry had their eyes on the POTUS prize.
Impeachment was not a remedy at the time (2003). The Republicans controlled Congress. After the 2006 election, impeachment has been out of the question b/c Bush would attack Iran and declare martial law. Do you want evidence for that, or what?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIO-tCPSfHA
At this hour, the heat has been turned up against Iran. Admiral Fallon's removal from command in the Middle East combined with next week's testimony from General Petraeus will not only foreclose any further impeachment discussions, but also will send a warning about 'war crime' issues. You take it up the ass from the POTUS you have, not the POTUS you want.
There's a rumor that Saddam wanted to accept the Bush 48-hour ultimatum:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/ExHussein_political_adviser_claims_Iraq_accepted_1030.html
http://tinyurl.com/yzaft7
"Or, give your recipients confidence with a preview TinyURL:"
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yzaft7
Last, Bush said Saddam tried to kill his Daddy, which gave Bush 43 more reason to avenge Saddam's attempted hit on 41 than Clinton 42 had claimed when he launched missile attacks against Saddam in retaliation.
BTW, Hillary has always been in a fragile political position, being the Senator from New York, where the attacks, destruction, and mass murders happened, and where too many first-responders died. She is bereft of the luxuries of second thoughts. She's the only candidate who must continue to mourn as part of the solemn oath she took. It makes her pathetic. If she loses the nomination, it will make her tragic. She voted right, and she's right not to apologize for it.
I'm not sure I can go with the argument that Dems want similar power and thus do not care to restrict Bush's ability to start an illegal war. I mean, Dennis Kucinich didn't even say anything about W breaking the 2002 act.
Maybe Dennis is hungry for power?
(That last sentence could make for a nice segue into a joke about Liz, but I'm to tired to formulate it.)
Money quote:
(b) P
RESIDENTIAL
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 ter-
rorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the ter-
rorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
------------
These are the conditions Congress required be true before triggering any implementation of the AUMF's ultimate force provision.
Only if the international cooperative pressure failed to yield an effective remedy that was sufficient to protect the national security of the United States, or likely to fail to accomplish the stated UN compliance conditions.
And it had to be consistent with the goals of the war on terror, to go after those who were connected with the terrorist rings alleged to be responsible for 9/11, and aid those efforts.
There was a third condition that wasn't in the act, but was understood by all: any further action in enforcing UN mandates by military force would have to be authorized by a vote in the UN Security Council. The Bush administration swore to this, having all their spokespersons and Republican leadership in the Congress on that exact talking point. No US military action to enforce against continued Saddam violations without UN SC authorization.
They said this was not a vote for war, but a vote for a last chance for a peaceful outcome short of war. War would only come later, if the UN SC decided their efforts were futile. So the AUMF was the only way to force Saddam to take the inspectors, the only way to be sure about his WMD caches. This happened to be true, and it worked. The inspectors got quite free rein, plus US intelligence-suggested sites of interest.
Then Bush simply bulldozed through all these backstops and conditions he'd agreed to and promised. He lied in his certification letters to Congress that all their conditions were fulfilled. He lied that he would seek the second UN SC vote, because the UN SC headcount showed a majority of the votes AGAINST such an authorization (and such action requires a supermajority of the SC in favor.)
This case is entirely clear. Under the AUMF, Bush never met the conditions it required. Worse than breaking that mere law, perhaps, his eventual war violated our country's treaty obligations under the UN Charter, an impeachable offense and a war crime.
So, tell me, why don't Democrats talk about any of this?
Some do, actually, but not the prominent ones.
Why? They're gun shy. This explanation has too many moving parts for the attention deficit American public, and provides too much fodder for attacks distorting its points. And frankly, with a 70/30 disapproval on the war, it's unnecessary detail selling something the public already bought.
It's only relevant now as HRC has refused to use it, even as she has refused to call her vote a mistake as John Edwards did during the campaign. I believe she thinks drawing more attention to that, even with this strong refutal, will not help her position on a net basis, so better to finesse the issue by neglect.
And who will make that case for her? Kerry, a BHO supporter? Edwards, her former opponent, who sees BHO's lead and knows he's the guy to cut a deal with? The progressive blogs in the tank for BHO? The hate-Clinton mainstream media?
No, nobody will make her case for her, and if she won't, it won't get done.
...sofla
Richard Burton is said to have once remarked, 'you haven't lived until you've tried Lizagna.'
Sof, I'm kind of with you here. But you see, my attitude is that Edwards, Clinton and the rest should simply say: "Hey, there's nothing to apologize for. The law worked. Bush simply..."
What was the word you used? Bulldozed. That's good.
He simply through it.
I think toward the end you get close to the reason why those who voted for the law won't frame the issue in this way: Because they know that the public is too damn dumb to follow the argument.
I'd also add that a lot of John Q. Citizens probably think -- even now, after the war has proven so unpopular -- that the President is a sort of god, or king, who should be able to go to war if and when he chooses.
Here's another poser. Why does the prog community find the 2002 vote so much more unforgivable in Clinton than in Kerry or Edwards? Why do the Kossacks stick to this view of Bush and Hillary planning the war together, gleefully scheming? Until recently, the same lefties were saying that Edwards was the only viable candidate -- and Edwards voted the same way.
That is the subject for our next post, methinks. We're dealing with MBM -- Moulitsas Brand Misogyny. This election season has given me an education, all right -- an education about gender stereotypes.
because it does not matter which way you vote, they're all the same. if you dont know that by now, you will probably never know.
good bye.
To me, the answer to all the questions here is that our culture has been corrupted, intentionally.
I know this and I understand and see it (living abroad for 20 years probably helps a little), but any words I use to explain shoot the reader off on tangents, and "push buttons," and encounter BELIEFS and OPINIONS. Or sometimes, people just don't have an adequate attention span to actually read and follow anything longer than a sentence (but if you can follow one of Joseph's longer pieces, you are not in that group.)
Just to pull one of many out of a hat, try reading "How Bertrand Russell Became an Evil Man" (Pushing buttons here, I know... Just read the damn thing, and if you feel a button being pushed, examine it, or make a margin note and plow on.)
If that one is "too repulsive," try something more "dry" like - Ingraham, Bob - "Origins Of The Anglo-Dutch World Order" http://wlym.com/articles/ingraham-anglo-dutch.pdf
Or a book by a real historian:
How the Nation Was Won, America's Untold Story, Volume One, 1630-1754 $20 or library or free .pdf here:
http://wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf
Our enemies have got the little issues covered. You have to get outside the box--the mental electric fence. If that's a struggle for you, imagine how hard it is for a national-level politician... or someone studying and working for their MA or PhD...
My best,
Gary McGowan
"Ever since I chose two months ago to support Barack Obama as the better remaining choice after John Edwards left the presidential race, I’ve not had second thoughts. But neither have I made a secret of my misgivings about various policy stances of the Senator from Illinois. Nowhere have these misgivings been stronger than when it comes to reshaping foreign policy, in general, dealing with the military-industrial-congressional complex, in particular, and, most immediately, figuring out what the United States should do next in Iraq.
While much campaign discussion among partisans has focused on the differences between what Senator Obama said in his October 2, 2002, speech about Iraq and what Senator Clinton said in her October 10 speech before she voted on the authorization to use force, what matters now has very little to do with they said and did more than five years ago. What matters is where we go from here in the sixth year of occupation.
During Tuesday’s hearings on Iraq, as refreshing as it would be – and as accurate – neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton (nor any other Senator who questions General David Petraeus) will say "imperialist" in reference to the bloody U.S. visitation on Iraq or its larger foreign policy. Nor "hegemony." Whether it be politicians, or textbook writers, or megamedia mavens, or, sadly, many historians, America simply cannot be attached to "empire" no matter the evidence. It’s just so ... un-American.
What can be expected from the Democrats in the hearings are frowns, snarkiness, and some questions about the specific tint and choice of brush-strokes in how Petraeus and Crocker paint their post-"surge" evaluation. Some of the questioning will have a superficially tough quality. There will be a contrast between Senator McCain’s approach and that of the Democrats."
Joe,
I hate to quote from a site you despise, but this says what I think about your question better than I could have put into words.
Regular Americans may not realize the scope of impeachment's consequences international, but I think politicians (at least some) do. The US is now seen as the single most violent warmonger nation in the world by the rest of the world. US foreign policy has not changed drastically under different administrations (the goals are long term and the system is set on auto pilot )and any change has to be forced by the population and would have to be incremental at best (the best reason to have Democrats win in 08 and not just the presidency). I think Americans are beginning to see imperialism for what it really is (and sadly because it's not working as well and costing too much at home)but in a country that questions the patriotism of someone with the name "Hussein", you've got to take things slow.
Why stop with your question then and not go further in questioning the wisdom of UN resolutions (and again the UN is seen as an American tool and not an independent entity from outside the US) to force Iraq to not pursue WMD? Did the US not provide Saddam with technology and parts and military hardware not too long ago? What country has the right to own, develop and pursue military might? What justifies US policy toward Iran in regards to Nuclear technology and call Pakistan and India allies?
Talk about opening a can of worms!
The problem with HRC's '02 vote for the AUMF is that BHO has made it a major talking point.
How did he phrase it? Oh, yes-- George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and HILLARY CLINTON, the three people who brought you this war!!!!!!
The man has unlimited chutzpah and a talent for the shiv in the back. How about he said, GWB, DC, and JOHN KERRY, the three people..., or ... and JOHN EDWARDS, the three people..., or... and TOM DASCHLE, the three people... ? PLENTY of his current supporters voted for the AUMF, including 2 of the three I mention above. WHICH of them single-handedly made the war happen, along with the principles of this administration? Considering it was about 75-25 in favor?
This wouldn't fly in the party if he made such a broad charge, but when he charges it OF a broad some love to hate, it sticks, and nobody says a word in her defense.
And that has been the measure of the downside of the hatred against her we always knew lurked in some significant segment of the public. While I argued she could still win the general election, and wasn't necessarily doomed by her very high negatives, they have proven critical even in a Democratic primary season.
...sofla
Fact is, it was not plainly a vote for war, and allegedly, the opposite (a reasonable case could be made for that position, if anyone dared). About HALF the Democrats in the US Senate voted for the resolution
Bravo, sof. I think you are on the right track.
Hillary Clinton and John Edwards commit the same "sin," if sin it was, but only Hillary gets the hate. Why? Well, in part because Edwards controls a few delegates which may prove necessary to Obama.
Of course, Obama probably already would have those delgates on his side if he had treated Edwards more respectfully, but I understand that there was a snubbing and some bad feelings.
Besides, none of that explains why the progs embraced Edwards so readily.
The real reason, methinks, is addressed in the post above.
That said, I think Dems should stop apologizing for the AUMF. Embrace it. Get behind it. And scream to the world that Bush illegally transgressed it. Use it as the basis for impeachment!
Joe, are you intentionally misstating the law now?
"That's the text of the 2002 Act
authorizing W to go to war against Iraq if Saddam Hussein did not allow weapons inspections."
As it turns out, you need to re-read it. Particularly to section 3(a)(1). The issue has never been about whether or not Iraq was allowing inspections. It would have been only one trigger. The biggest issue was of harboring WMDs which, regardless of the inspections, the Bush administration claimed they had. Certain politicians signed on with that. Hence, they pass the buck on the authority call. This would be a valid defense for Clinton and McCain. Bush did make the call to go to war in the end. However, they voted in favor of giving him that power to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."
Are you intentionally trying to muddy the waters, or do you just need a break? Personally, I'm starting to think it's the latter. This blog has turned into a grudge match for you and you've really been slipping on your presentation. Not like I haven't wanred you about this repeatedly now.
First, the link no longer works. Try this:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107
Second, sections 3(a)(1) and (2) read as follows:
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.
Seems to me that the word "and" indicates that both are necessary reasons for military force.
As I said, I think this law is badly written. Then again, I've rarely looked closely at ANY law without thinking that a rewrite could help.
(1) does not specify WMDs, does it? I mean, it is conceivable that a nation might have WMDs without posing a threat.
But the next paragraph is also a necessary condition. And at least here we are no longer dealing with vagueness. UN resolutions are not matters of perception. The UN either says "Saddam is in breach" or it does not.
It did not.
And the proof of the pudding came in the form of the Presidential determination that was required by the law. Look it up. It says:
"Despite these diplomatic and peaceful efforts, Iraq remains in breach of relevant UNSC resolutions and a threat to the United States and other countries."
This simply was not true. There are lots and lots of outright lies in that document.
Look, we all know that Bush treated this Act as a legal fig leaf. Just because he thought of it that way does not mean we have to. The thing has the force of law and he broke it.
Read the law again, Joe, and look at your response. The way the Bush admin applied their logic satisfied both a1 and a2. The question was what the President deemed reasonable and appropriate.
The fact of the matter is, had more people had the spine to vote "no" on this law, it would have been much more dificult for Bush to go to war since a.) the Security Council had remained seized of the matter, b.) he had no vote of confidence or authorization from the legislature and c.) it would have been a direct violation of international law.
Part C applies regardless. But, given the popular support he had, it wasn't a political liability. Your input on this is simply wrong on too many points. Furthermore, Clinton has been more than happy to point out that this is Bush's screw up. She just won't dare call it a violation of international law. She could, and it would be no legal sweat for her. But, her people consider that a political liability. McCain obviously isn't going to do that, nor do I think we'll here too much from Obama either.
Regardless, if you want to slamdunk this, you should be informing people that, with or without this law, or the presence or lack of weapons inspectors, our invasion and war was a violation of international law. The UN General Charter is a treaty we signed and ratified. It is at play here. We have agreed to be bound by the decisions of the UNSC in such conflicts. Nothing in UNSC Res 1441 ever gave the US any power to go to war. You have to trace the argument back through multiple UNSC Resolutions (which Bush actually did site). When you end at UNSC Res 678, you'll see that, under the circumstances, we were authorised to use force to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. That's it, and it didn't apply here.
This is worse than it looks. That "vote" on the war was nothing but a political tool. Though, I'm not about to pretend I hold anyone who gave a "yes" vote on it in any high regard. Even Jon Corzine had the spine to vote "no" on that one.
The fact of the matter is, this "law" was a problem, as it was nothing more than a political prop. As a nation, if we are facing imminent attack, or have been attacked, the President needs neither a blessing from the UNSC or the Legisslature before acting to defend us. If Iraq truly was a threat to us, the authorization simply wasn't necesary. Some people recognized that while other's intentionally did not. That's why the votes that were cast on it matter.
John, now I see where you're coming from. But you didn't understand where I was coming from.
You thought that I was arguing that the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq was legally justified.
Quite the opposite.
My argument actually harkens back to the impeachment debate -- in other words, I was looking back to 2007, not to 2002. Everyone in early 2007 (including me) was looking for an airtight legal case for impeachment. And the best case was right there, in the resolution.
Why was that course ignored? I'm guessing because so many Dems who voted for that Act preferred not to be reminded of its existence.
So don't think I'm letting Hillary off the hook here.
I'm not slamming her or Kerry or any of the others for the 2002 vote. (And I would remind you that Barack Obama -- or one of the previous Obamas, since he has worn so many faces -- was once careful not to insult those who voted for the thing.) But I AM slamming Hillary, Obama, Pelosi, Kerry, Dean and the whole damn party for not using the Act as a tool for impeachment.
Joe, this act is not the tool for impeachment. Again, if you read it, Bush lived up to the letter of the law. It was written that way on purpose. Anyone withh the slightest amount of legal experience, particularly those serving in the legislature, should have seen it that way.
This whole law has allowed for the red herrings of "bad intelligence," "oh, they might still be out there," etc. Without this law, the Bush administration didn't have that. Keep in mind that, while your reading the triggers as both being requirements, the public attitude at the time was that the UN was NOT enforcing it's own resolutions. That was the whole point for the bogus diplomacy that led up to UNSC Res 1441. Both of those prongs were presented as a blessing of the legislature to Bush in order to a.) protect America from Iraq and b.) use our forces to do what the UN was not, so long as he thought it necesary and appropriate and provided the House with some paperwork later.
The impeachment issue here rests not on this law, but in Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. We signed and ratified a treaty that specifically states we will not launch wars of aggression, or attack any state lest we have been attacked or are facing imminent attack. Our public at large, unfortunately, is unaware of this and the Bush administration took advantage of that. But, this authorization to use force, whether followed to the letter of the law or not, doesn't save him from impeachment if people cared to actually push it. But, since our own public doesn't understand the law or the Constitution enough, the obvious trigger there gets ignored, and we get to debate over whether or not Bush really knew the intelligence he had was bad, and if he just made a mistake. It's a dead end as it allows for his people to continue to pile on the BS. Meanwhile, they have no excuse at all without this authorization.
"Again, if you read it, Bush lived up to the letter of the law...."
Nahh. The living up to the letter of the law part is determined by the...er...well, the determination. The law requires him to fill out a presidential determination, and he did. But it's filled iwth lies. I've pulled an all nighter so I don't have the gumption to look up the URL, but you can google it and see for yourself.
Of course, nothing in the law compelled W to tell the truth. Hm. You think THAT'S an out...?
Yes, it's an out, Joe. He followed the letter of the law in that act. The only way to show that he didn't is to prove that he, as President, personally lied. And, unfortunately, there are too many people beneath him who were setup to be fall guys with the "bad intelligence" excuse. Thus, "Bush didn't lie. He may have made a mistake. But, as far as we know, those WMDs are now in Syria." To humor this authorization as a tool to impeach is wasted time, because Bush will be out of office before anyone digs up any bulletproof evidence that he lied. You essentially need evidence that's an admission from Bush. If he relied on "intelligence" from people beneath him, it no longer becomes a criminal issue for Bush, or an issue that rises to the level of his impeachment.
However, if you focus on the fact that, regardless of whether or not Bush followed this law and made a mistake, or even if he lied about it, it doesn't matter in regards to impeachment. You can kill the whole debate surrounding the "if" on his honesty by just focussing what is in article VI Clause 2 of the US Constitution, what is written, agreed to and ratified in the UN General Charter, and focussing on how this matter has been dealt with before.
If you do that, there is no longer any room for argument about Bush lying. Rather, he violated the law whether he honestly though there were WMDs in Iraq or not. Focus on this issue more as it's barely gotten any media coverage, simply because it is confusing to many and, unfortunately for the powerful, a winning argument. The only reason this hasn't been used is because the public currently doesn't understand our system of law enough to get behind it, nor do many have the political will. Work on changing that.
Here's an excellent summary of the issue from before the war even started.
http://www.lcnp.org/global/iraqstatement3.htm
Since it's not directly quoted in the above statement all the way, here is Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution in it's entirety:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
But suppose the US found WMDs, then the invasion could have been justified, right? If you accept that, then suppose, instead, b/c none were found, that you carry on with impeachment. Then we should expect that the POTUS-plus will say there were WMDs found but kept secret for National Security/military security reasons. Only in a National Security State is it possible for the rulers to prove a negative by decree.
John, let's not get into the treaty thing. That has been a total goatfuck since the end of WWII and probably before.
And, look, Bush can argue all he wants to about how the intelligence ran. None of that matters.
The law required him to send in a determination as to whether or not the inspectors were in and doing the job mandated by the UN. And the inspectors were in, and the UN had no problems. He didn't need the CIA to determine that. A phone call to the UN, or just opening up the Washington Post, would have told him the story.
H, I'm not arguing that the invasion would have been justified if WMDs were found. As far as I was concerned, Saddam could have armed himself any way he wanted. Stalin had the bomb. Ain't no-one on the scene today (or in 2002)worse than HIM.
To repeat: My question was not "Was the Iraq war justified?" My question was "Could the AUMF Act have been the basis for impeachment?"
I say yes.
Hope this is making sense. I've been up for hours.
Joe,
Treaty law is the most important factor. Without it, the UN has no relevance to us in the slightest. Since you focus on the authorization act, every scenario or belief you bring up around it can be countered by another, neither of which will prove that Bush lied. It's the only way to nail him under that.
To win an argument, you should go with that which is strongest. The authorization act is not the strongest, simply because it provides Bush with a means of assigning his mea culpa to someone else. So, why bother with it? Without him admitting, either somewhere on paper or in person, that he lied, it doesn't affect him.
On the otherhand, with or without people having made mistakes under him, the mere fact that well established international law made Bush's decision to go to war illegal, with or without the authorization act, is what should be focussed on. There is no mea culpa that can be assigned there. PErsonally, that's the biggest issue I have with Clinton voting "yes" on this thing. As a lawyer, she has no excuse to not know and understand this. She went along and provided Bush with cover when she should have done the exact opposite. That's why I don't believe this is an issue where we just need to look past how people voted. If more people voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the same excuses he does now when he decided to go to war anyways.
Did you read the material I posted? It's not that complicated of an argument. People just generally don't understand how to connect the dots with international law and American domestic law. The key enabling link is Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. That little article I posted sums up how the UN General Charter comes into play from there quite nicely. And, it's a slam dunk. Don't bother focussing on arguments that can be short-circuited by never-ending hypotheticals or plausible deniability.
I don't mean to distract anyone from the ongoing argument here, but I'd like to point out that quite a number of us (say, patriots) would have settled for impeaching Cheney, or at least him before Bush. And he's such an easy target on so many counts.
I certainly cannot imagine Hillary, Obama or Kerry wanting Cheney as president. And how would you (they) like to go down in history as the person who started the ball rolling to make that happen?
Gary McGowan
Maybe you didn't read all of what I wrote. I said Bush et al. could easily avoid impeachment for the unlawful invasion - are you still reading? - by claiming (and lying) that WMDs were found but they had to say there were none found for National Security reasons. But I was only responding to the dumb chess challenge. Impeachment was off the table forever after the 2006 elections b/c Bush/Cheney let it be known that he/he would attack Iran and impose martial law; just for fun, and to prove he's/he's not gonna let anyone fuck with him/him, he/he fired US Attorneys and had his/his US Attorneys bring frivolous criminal cases against a few vulnerable Democrats, also threatening Conyers. BTW, Wecht's jury was hung, no verdict, US moved for a new trial. Details: no witnesses for the defense, not a single one!
The anthrax shit. Porter Goss. Pelosi in the know early about waterboarding. After you rest up, maybe you or someone else can supply some verbs there, I can't.
I'm catching up, so I regret posting a late comment in a no-doubt dead discussion.
I think that the circumstances surrounding the invasion are complicated enough that they fear the consequences of an attempt to make a case to the public for how Congress lost so much power over the armed forces.
The invasion proved that with or without legislative and public support for war, the administration can wage a total war against a foreign government. This couldn't have happed 30 years ago due to insufficient mobility of our armed forces. However, with our airlift capabilities and Middle East presence in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan we possessed the ability to launch an invasion within a short enough period that it could out-pace an effective legislative block against it. Once engaged in the war, the entire government became responsible for the outcome, greatly hindering any reprisal against the administration.
You can't have the discussion about Bush clearly breaking the law without having to ultimately discuss how he was able to get away with it in the first place. The implications, especially in light of the possibility that a future president may decide to launch a nuclear war of aggression, probably won't be lost on many of the public.
If I may reach a bit, I also wonder if this discussion might enlighten our military ranks with the idea that our learned generals, who clearly should have known better, broke their oaths of service and followed illegal invasion orders. I don't think anyone would want the stigma of having contributed to damaged unit cohesion, loss of faith with leadership, and active protest among active duty and activated military members during a war. I can't see how any politician opposing the legality of the war could have avoided becoming a champion for veteran and active duty opposition.
Post a Comment