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?

Acting as an adult and admitting mistakes might be a start.

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.

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

Isn't that impeachable?

Joking! :) Ida

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.

We need to fire the Congress NOW for dereliction of duty.

in for a pound.

beyond a one way trip to Crawford.
He was not elected, is not qualified, and can't be trusted.
Maybe let him be dogcatcher.

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.

... 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.

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...

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.

troops. The authority given was far too broad for the task.

The power to send a nation to war should never reside in one person.

Period.

backed the President, to give the Presisdent the power to go to war.

Where to rest the blame?

And they gave it to Caligula... Yes, they did.

"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.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Ya know it does bring a smile to my face!

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?

It was Congress' job not to surrender it to him. The more dangerous the leader, the more power he will seek.

But approval ratings determine the outcome. Bush played the shell game. Not the other way around.

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.

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

Nice try. But, that top don't spin.

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.

Chimp's background was well known prior to his inauguration. There was no basis for trusting him on any matter.

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.

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.

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.

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.

:thumbsup:

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.

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.

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.

in the little boy's room

Uh huh. Oui. Si.

to go to the bathroom by himself. :eyes:

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.

why is that so fucking hard for people to understand?

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?

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.

for most any other president, not necessarily.

...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.

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.

unjustified wars.

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".

Kerry is all for that, just not the way Bush proceeded with it. Kerry approved of the goal, but not the technique.

Plundering and enslavement with a human face.

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

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.

.

and I would have done the same if I were in Congress.

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."

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 :(

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.

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?

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.

Just as many of us believed it was that day long ago...and many of us still believe. :hi:

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.

...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.