Kerry: Bush Circumvented The Congressional Resolution

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Monday that President Bush circumvented portions of the congressional resolution authorizing war against Iraq by failing to exhaust all diplomatic options before attacking Baghdad.

The Massachusetts senator has stood by his vote last fall for the Iraq resolution in the face of criticism from anti-war Democrats and rival Howard Dean, a former Vermont governor who opposed the U.S.-led war. Kerry qualified his support Monday, saying it was the correct vote "based on the information that we were given."

"The president promised to build the international coalition, to do this as a matter of last resort, to go through the United Nations process and respect it," he said. "And in the end, it is clear now that he didn't do that sufficiently. And I think in that regard, the American people were let down."

Kerry said he voted for the resolution with the understanding that the administration would build an international coalition before attacking Saddam Hussein's forces.

"It seems quite clear to me that the president circumvented that process, shortchanged it and did not give full meaning to the words 'last resort,'" Kerry said in a 20-minute conference call with reporters.

The White House had no immediate comment on Kerry's criticism.

Kerry repeated his call for an investigation into the intelligence used to justify war with Iraq, but he said his most urgent concern is the safety of troops still stationed there. He said the Bush administration should go to the United Nations and seek an international coalition to share the burden for peacekeeping.

Kerry said the administration is acting out of "a sort of either ideological or other kind of restraint" that is keeping them from getting support for U.S troops, who make up roughly 147,000 of the 160,000 force in Iraq.

"Half the Vietnam Wall dates from the time that that kind of pride began to cloud the decisions in Vietnam and I refuse to believe that the morale of the troops or the safety of the troops is helped by inserting hubris into this process now," said Kerry, a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War.

<>

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=9&u=/ap/kerry_iraq

Kerry is looking for an angle. He is a coward and a fool. He is embarrassing.

I can't believe the shamelessness.

Kerry makes me sick.

He seems to be taking his cues from Howard Dean lately though, rather than Fox news. That's an improvement.

I can see why you don't identify who you are supporting if the best you can do is name calling.

I support Howard Dean.

Dean criticism of the act will be the end of his campiagn.

Saudi Arabia with the rest of the cowards.

with Heinz catsup.

Dean '04

I can just imagine your skin crawling every time I mention Kerry as the first X-treme POTUS.

your power - just like Kerry.

Your boy is going down. He has destroyed himself through his cowardice and inaction.

Search your feelings. In your heart, you know Kerry will win (heavy breathing).

You: That's not true! That's impossible!

And so forth. Eventually you cut off my hand and I throw Bush down a giant shaft, only to die from electrical shock like so many Texas death row inmates. And Kerry wins.

Paul Bedard writes in the Washington Whispers column of U.S. News & World Report:

"Biden's toying with a candidacy has irked Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. We hear that Kerry recently harangued Biden on the Senate floor about his plans, repeatedly asking, 'Why are you doing this?' At one point, Kerry even asked if Biden didn't think Kerry was good enough to run."

that was excellent. thanks for the laugh.

Kerry will bash Bush for the war, and Dean will bash Kerry for agreeing with him, without apology.

I love your satiric renditions of Freepers. You always were the cad, old boy! Good show! Good show!

Or back off.

Deans variances in stance supported far worse than this act did.

"prove my point".

FACT: Kerry supported George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq.

FACT: Kerry did so because he was worried about the political implications of not supporting said invasion.

Premise: Politicians who surrender the most important of their ideals for political reasons are cowards.

Premise: Kerry surrendered the most important of his political ideals because of political reasons.

Ergo: Kerry is a coward.

QED

a smart, brave guy like you could have stood up and I said, "I know for a fact that there are no WMD". Then all Senate Dems would naturally have rallied around you.

The only problem is, where did the Senate's intelligence come from? Oh yeah, this administration. So based on what they were fed, why would any Senator take a chance of being wrong on this issue? What if you vote NO and "Kaboom", one of those Iraqi drones comes flying off a barge off the coast of New England and hits Boston? Would you really be prepared to write off a couple of hundred thousand people if there was a chance that the intel was correct?

Sure, hindsight tells us that this administration lied...we all knew it here. But we aren't the entire American population, are we? There are many who still think that Iraq has WMD.

No, I can understand any Democrat who opted to vote to protect the US. I can also understand Dean's position and respect that to. This administration played the Iraqi vote purposely, so that people like you would help destroy the Democratic presidential candidates.

And I most clearly heard the Senate resolution authorizing Bush to work with the UN....not start a unilateral war.

Tis a shame, we can't be voting for a smart, brave guy like you, though...

If I new the intelligence was bad from reading the New York Times and the watching the BBC, John Kerry knew it was bad.

The point here is not whether the Democratic Party would've followed Kerry or not. In all probablity, they wouldn't have. That is my point. Kerry is a leader in the Democratic Party. The leaders of the Democratic Party decided to cut their political losses because of the 2002 election.

They voted for the resolution because they thought it would help them in the election.

There is line. Once you cross that line, you become complicit in the criminal act. The leaders of the Democratic Party crossed that line.

Kerry and Gephardt and Lieberman all crossed that line.

It did not help them in the election.

Not only was it a political miscalculation of unprecidented proportions, it demonstrated how far out of touch the Democratic Party is with reality, morality, their espoused fundamental ideals and their core constituency.

Kerry should resign now in shame for the murders he enabled.

He is nmot providing excuses.

What Deean is doing is exactly what Ronald Reagan did during Carters crisis during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Dean and his supporters criticize, yet Dean provides not alternative and in a period of less than ten days is reported stating totally opposing stances to different people.

On January 31, Dean told Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without U.N. authorization."

And then on Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that "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."

But a day later, he told the Associated Press that he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approves the move and backs it with action of its own. "They have to send troops," he said.

Four days later on PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Dean said United Nations authorization was a prerequisite for war. "We need to respect the legal rights that are involved here," Dean said. "Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them."

http://www.topdog04.com/000071.html

By the time Dean actually said something straight, Bush would have gone to war without a congressional act setting conditions for support and thus have used military force with TOTAL LEGALITY.
Dean is truly a glib, dishionest politician, with no concept of how to defend the nation at all.

If he is actually elected I cringe that Al Qaeda will eventually be the power in Washington.

"So based on what they were fed (Gov. supplied intel), why would any Senator take a chance of being wrong on this issue? What if you vote NO and "Kaboom", one of those Iraqi drones comes flying off a barge off the coast of New England and hits Boston? Would you really be prepared to write off a couple of hundred thousand people if there was a chance that the intel was correct?"


How would you have voted TV?

You cannot, the act as posted sets conditions. Bush circumvented these conditions.

ONCE AGAIN:

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.htm

This is the section setting the conditions for authorization.
Prove they were met. Prove that Kerry agreed that they were met.

Now in order for you to be correct about the act, Bush would have had to prove that the conditions above existed. As a matter of fact, because you beleive that this act was a vote for war, it indicates that you beleive that Bush met the conditions. He proved that diplomatic and peacefuil methods had been exhausted,and they were not adequate to protect the U.S. from threat. Or that he proved to the satisfaction of congress that Iraq was somehjow involved with 9/11 or harboring the people involved.

This means you are suggesting that Bush actually provided valid evidence of threat or Al Qaeda involvement.



Your opinion of the act is that it supported Bush acting UNCONDITIONALLY. It did not. Prove that it did.

As representative Sheila Jackson is saying right now, On C-SPAN, Bush never met the consditions, so Congress NEVER had the second required vote to agree that Bush had give COngress sufficient information in his letters to the President of the Senate Pro Tempore and the Speaker of the House.


That Congress never met in order to weigh the proofs Bush presented for validity.

Because we are sick of excuses and prevarications and sophistry and word games and political games and bullshit.

Your post embodies everything we hate.

Your post embodies everything Dean is against.

Your post demonstrates the reason why the Democratic Party lost 2002.

Your post demonstrates why, if Kerry wins the primary, the Democratic Party will lose 2004 and be the minority party for the next 30 years.

We are Americans. We want our leaders to stand up a be counted for what they believe in. We want values. We want courage. We want vision. We want clarity.

We don't want sneaky little arguments rationalizing cowarice and corruption.

WE WANT A LEADER.

Not a leader...

led by polling information before he takes a stance...

Like on civil unions...

Whos places burdens upon the poor, while protecting the wealthy....


and supported by those unable to provide good reasons for his doing so.

unable to come up with an original thought.

A true conservative in every sense of the word...

Dean deceives those incapable of recognizing deceit.

Everthing you say convinces me that the only thing worse than George Bush

Would be Howard Dean.

At least he is not a coward.

when Dean courageously signed it. Way to be led by polls :eyes:

I'm glad Sen. Milquetoast is complaining about Bush circumventing the Congressional resolution. Too bad it is FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE WAR IS OVER! If Kerry had half the integrity of Dean, he would have been complaining about it as Bush was starting the war...

Dean was complaining about the war from DAY ONE, even though he did not have to. He gave up his one advantage of not having to vote on the issue - silence. he took a political risk. Yes, he would have supported a war if there was a case that Iraq endangered the US, thats a no-brainer. Guess what, under international law, you dont need a UN resolution to act in self-defense. Under any circumstances in which Dean would have favored a war, it would have been perfectly legal.

Dean 2004, the last hope for the Democratic Party

don't confuse them with the truth, darboy . . .

IS the same type that weakened the party when McGovern ran, anke has kept republicans in power for years. And as he is weakening it now.

You can provide no proof that Dean will not return to his Republican supporting, democratic opposing behavior that was the hallmark of his terms as governor.

The Democratic head of the Vermont Senate said it best:

Even the governor’s closest allies in the Senate ignored him. Sen. Nancy Chard, D-Windham, recommended restoring $440,000 to one of the pharmaceutical assistance programs and the Senate voted 22-7 to go along with her.

“I’ve become convinced that we have a philosophical difference between the governor, the Republican House and this Senate,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham.

“The governor and the Republican House want to balance this budget on the backs of our most vulnerable Vermonters. The Senate wants to balance this budget on the backs of the pharmaceutical companies who are charging too much for drugs.”

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/46513.html

In Vermont, said John McClaughry, Dean was such a centrist that some in his own party considered him "a Republican in drag." McClaughry, a Republican who heads the Ethan Allen Institute, a public policy think tank in Kirby, Vt., said: "A lot of people in Vermont look at Howard Dean today and they don't see the Howard Dean who was governor. He has reshaped himself to appeal to a faction of the Democratic constituency."

http://www.uvm.edu/~uvmpr/uvmclips/MayClips/NelsonDeanLATimes.htm

Dean is the only Democratic candidate running who started his political affiliation as a Republican.

Indeed, as Norman Solomon observes, there's a real disconnect between Dean's media image and his record.

"But the Democratic Leadership Council need not despair. Most of the nation's political journalists, including pro-Democrat pundits, insist that the party should not nominate someone too far 'left' -- which usually means anybody who's appreciably more progressive than the DLC. That bias helps to account for the frequent mislabeling of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has risen to the top tier of contenders for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.

After Dean officially announced his campaign on June 23, some news stories identified him with the left. It's a case of mistaken identity. 'He's really a classic Rockefeller Republican -- a fiscal conservative and social liberal,' according to University of Vermont political scientist Garrison Nelson."

http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2003/27/we_473_02.html

After Dean officially announced his campaign on June 23, some news stories identified him with the left. It's a case of mistaken identity. "He's really a classic Rockefeller Republican -- a fiscal conservative and social liberal," according to University of Vermont political scientist Garrison Nelson.

As a fiscal conservative, Dean is aligned with the status quo of extreme inequities. That alignment was on display during a pair of June 22 appearances.

In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Dean delivered a one-two punch against economic justice. He advocated increasing the retirement age for Social Security, and he called for slowing down the rate of increases for Medicare spending.


http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=15232&CFID=81%2078495&CFTOKEN=3253804

The guys writing about Dean here either knew what he was like as governor, or are REAL progresived. Norm SOlomon, the founder of the Institute for Public Accuracy.


That he is not lying to win the nomination.

Dean is ,as noted by Vermont Republicans, "A Republican in Drag"

If you want a Republican, why not just give in and vote for one instead of voting for Dean.

"IS the same type that weakened the party when McGovern ran"

No, the Democratic Party is currently a rotting corpse. It cannot get any weaker. And Kerry is one of the reasons why. It is the current leadership that has destroyed the party, not Howard Dean. The current leadership that lost 2002, not Howard Dean. The current leadership that lost the House, not Howard Dean. The current leadership that lost Senate, not Howard Dean. The current leadership that enabled Bush, not Howard Dean. The current leadership that voted for the tax cuts. The current leadership that voted for the Patriot Act. The current leadership that voted for the Iraq war. The current leadership that is directionless, rudderless and Hamlet-esque, not Howard Dean.

The Democratic Party has been decimated by cowards. Say what you will, but Dean is not a coward. At least he will stand up and lead.

By a candidate who continually attacked the party leadership, as McGovern did. It eneabled the Republicans to put forward extrememly conservative agendas by remaining united, whil one cnadidate divided the opposition. This is what Dean is doing now. His actions strengthen Bush every day.


Notice, Dean is trying to move the issues away from Iraq, in orer to get focus off of his weak and ever waffling stance.

Does anybody have any interest in talking about the fact that the jobless rate just went up and that I'd like to have health insurance for everybody?" Dean, a Democratic presidential hopeful, asked reporters. He met with the media after appearing on Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press" program.

"Or is all just going to be Iraq, Iraq, Iraq?" Dean said.

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2003/03/08/news/regional/1ff651c10914f59d86256ce3001ff5ab.txt

Dean, who spent the bulk of his time attacking other candidates on Iraq, is trying to divert attention form his ever changing stance on the issues, and the fact that it is only the act itself that can be used against the presidnet for attacking Iraq before complying with the terms he agreed to in the act. Without the act, or any act, COngress had no legal right to prevent the president from acting.

Dean will soon be portrayed as the man who prevented COngress from stopping the president from going to war in Iraq when he did, and without international support.

This is why Kerry is waiting til the Senate reajourns after the summer recess before beginning full scale campaigning, and full scale criticism of trhe president. As longas Dean is politicking, there is no reason Kerry shouldnt. Deans attack on the act is going to becom a very large liability very soon.
This is exactly how Kerry started the Iran Contra investigation, as well as BCCI. A suggestion that the Presidents administration hadd circumvented some legislation of Congress.

His Media Beat column is on my must-read list with people like Paul Krugman, Molly Ivins and David Corn. Which is why a note like this has a little more resonance:

"Dean is already sending a message to his announced supporters among peace and social-justice advocates: Thanks, suckers."

I make a point of trying not to Dean-bash, but ouch!

all that you say here looks like it is true.

"the act as posted sets conditions. Bush circumvented these conditions"

Ok - so why hasn't Kerry called Bush out on this sooner? Why didn't he come out against Bush's war?

Everyone is mis-construing his vote this fall to mean that he supported Bush's war (which you have gone to great lengths to prove that he didn't). Why won't Kerry make the distinction? It looks like he wants people on both sides of the issue to believe he is on their side, when everything he has said and written (with the exception of not denouncing the war) shows that he actually didn't support the war. Kerry needs to clear up the confusion.

By the way, I'm happy to see that Kerry is making some arguments and statements above that are more consistent with his statement from last fall, before the vote. He needs to stay on that message.

You are planning to smack upside of the head what you are doing.

WHen I worked for the law firm I worked for, I had to sign a letter of confidentiality that I would not discuss anything that I heard, or worked on regarding ANY case we were either working on, had worked on, was in court, and to this day I am still bound by the letter to NEVER discuss, for the rest of my life, what I researched or did for the firm...

First of all, there needs to be considerable PUBLIC opinion that it is beleived that Bush did not tell the truth about WMD's intelligence about Al Qaeda and Iraq, and the failure of deiplmatic methods.

Public opinion plays a critical role in this, None of the democratic candidates beleived from the get go that Bush had legitimate reasons to do a pre-emptive strike on Iraq. If you read the ACt, and then find the sections of international conventions and the U.N. resolutions on this, you will see that the act was written to parallel international law.

Second, the president could have acted independently, in any way he wished, if Congress did not write SOME KIND of resolution prior to his acting. So essentially, what the act did was force Bush to do what he said he did not have to do, follow international conventions on pre-emption. All of the conventions state exactly the same thing.

First try to play well with others and come to a peaceful agreement and diplomatic means to solve international differences.

Next, if this fails convince the international community, through its co-ordinating body, to use increasing levels of economic or even use of increasing levels of treat or force and then force itself in order to get the recalcitrant party to comply...

Finally, and only if proof that the recalcitrant party will not comply and is a threat to the United States, its allies, or it economic interest, or its citizens in the U.S. OR outside of it, then and only then can the U.S. act unilaterally.

The act covered ALL of the excuses that Bush was giveing as reasons that HE DID NOT NEED U.N. or Congressional support in order to act in what the PRESIDENT perceives as a threat to the nation.

There are other considerations for doing it now, rather than when the presidentwas riding on a wave of popularity after he used force.
It can not be called a war, as Congress DID NOT DECLARE war, which was what would have resulted if Congress felt Bush had met the terms of the act.

The part of the act in which the president was asked to inform the President of the Senate, Protempore, and the Speaker of the House, before, or as soon as possible after beginning use of force, and NO LATER than 48 hours after the beginning of histilities IS the process required for the president to ask congress to declare war.


It was more imoprtant to Bush to try to get Congress to declare war, than it was for Congress. Bush needed Congress to support his going to war for political safety. He could have gone anyway. And to get congress to agree, it was Bush, not Congress, who set up criteria for Bush to meet BEFORE he engaged in Hostilities:


Questions and answers about the war:

Q. Did Congress authorize the war against Iraq?

A. Congress did not issue a formal declaration of war. However, a congressional joint resolution last October authorized President Bush to use the military to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq and to defend against the "threat posed by Iraq." Although Bush worked for and welcomed the resolution, he, like a long line of other presidents, asserts the Constitution gives the president sole war-making authority.

http://www.thehollandsentinel.net/stories/040303/new_040303036.shtml


DECLARATION OF WAR - An act of the national legislature, in which a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and some other nation. This power is vested in Congress by the Constitution, Art. I. There is no form or ceremony necessary, except the passage of the act.

The public proclamation of the government of a state, by which it declares itself to be at war with a foreign power, and which forbids all and every one to aid or assist the common enemy. A manifesto stating the causes of the war is usually published, but war exists as soon as the act takes effect.

It was formerly usual to precede hostilities by a public declaration communicated to the enemy, and to send a herald to demand satisfaction, but that is not the practice of modern times. In some countries, e.g., England, the power of declaring war is vested in the king, but he has no power to raise men or money to carry it on, which renders the right almost nugatory.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d108.htm

The problem was, that Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney, thought they were smart enough to trick, and if not smart enough, bully enough to threaten all them third world nations who we give aid to, threaten them that the U.S. would pull back its foreign aid, and so get the U.N. to back them up. Dealing with those effete European wuss's was something they thought they could deal with, especially by diminishing public opinion on those European allies, buying Bush more public suport for his actions.

from links above, you will note that the Iraq Act, dated October 2, 2002, was NOT a declaration of war. That is the ONLY thing that COngress can do that actually supports and lends authority to the presidents actions. While Bush welcomed the resolution, he only did so becasue he felt he could con or bully the U.N. into doing exactly what he wanted. When that didn't happen, Bush then tried to provide false documentation as to an immediate threat. But the evidence was NEVER debated in Congress. So Bush NEVER got the Declaration of war he wanted and that the act was prelude to, if Bush did what the act stated were the conditions for COngress to follow suit and enter into agreement with Bush on Iraq. Bush realized he would not be able to get the declaration of war out of the Senate.

And so simply DISREGARDED Congress and used the prresidents SOLE authority to wage war. Congress can only declare war which is merely a public proclamation of Hostilities, which effect DIPLOMATIC status between nations, but is not necessary to WAGE war.

The real provblem has been Dean. His attacks on the act, has caused have caused a split in those who were totally anti-war, and those who wanted any possibility of war to be channeled through the U.N.

While thosewho were AGAINST Bush's policy of pre-emtion were squabbling and disunited. The pro-war camp was monolithic in its support of the Bush and Blair.


It is firtunate that Dean has decided to STOP attacking the other democrats. He has actually said NOTHING about the Iraq Act since around the time of the South Carolina debates, and has recently states that he is going to stop attacking other democrats.

It would actually be more effective to bring charges against Bush, if Dean recanted, and stated that the Iraq Act, in afterthought was the best way to try to rein in the president, than to get those who supported it to recant. By turning public opinion to the attention that Bush DID try to circumvent the conditions Congress set in the act, rather than debate it, it would be far easier to pull another Iran-Contra on a president who has tried to circumvent U.S. law in order to engage in military adventures.


I think I am fairly on target with this, as a few months ago, I met a fairly high powered democratic party political consultant who is also disabled at a group. HE has been following MY arguments on DU, as I mentioned the things I was arguing about and, he has been discussing my analytical abilities in this area with the president and one of the deans of a local community college to create a course for me to teach on the U.S. law and international relations. I just got a call this afternoon to meet with them.

Kerry voted to authorize the use of force to back up the disarmament process. It was Bush who circumvented that process by prematurely pulling out and shooting his load - in direct contradiction to the resolution.

Kerry still maintains that the vote was the right thing given the intelligence the CIA presented to the Senate. At the time, Saddam was jerking around the inspectors - as he had been for over a decade. Kerry gave authorization to put some teeth into the inspection process. But ultimately it was Bush he took the bite when he had no right to.

Kerry quieted his criticism when soldiers came into harm's way. Until the infamous "regime change" comment, when he resumed his criticisms about the prosecution of the war - or rather the winning of the peace. Many at DU felt that Kerry was too lukewarm in his attacks, but within the last weeks Kerry has really turned the heat. Big surprise - those same DUers are still not satisfied. Now he's accused of stealing Dean's fire.

But the "circumvention" argument is dead solid one way or another.

Your ruining Thor's "Kerry's a coward" meme.

I'm glad to have Kerry on board in criticizing this war - where he should have been in the first place given his statement before the vote last fall.

And soldiers are still in harm's way, so I'm not sure that holds up as an argument as to why Kerry quieted his criticism this spring. But at least he's not quiet now!

Down with Bush.

I was going to mark you down as conspicuously absent after the last great Kerry debate!

To answer your question, Bush declared Mission Accomplished awhile back now. Fair game in my book.

But you have to admit that the "circumvention" line is exactly what you were asking for. I don't think Kerry will ever denounce his vote. It would be political suicide if he did.

He is making the argument that most of America stands behind - Saddam need to be contained and disarmed, Kerry stood behind the President, gave him every opportunity to do the right thing, but was shocked and awed to see how monumentally Bush screwed up at every turn.

Even if no weapons turn up, it would still be ridiculous to say Iraq didn't represent a threat. Just not an imminent threat. Therefore, disarmament backed by force, but no rush to invade as long as Saddam reasonably cooperated.

Great quotes from Kerry.

I don't think Kerry should denounce his vote. As N_J has said (and said and said and said) his vote actually probably did more good than harm. But Kerry needs to point that out. I guess saying that it forced Bush to go to the UN is a good start, but pointing out it wouldn't have stopped Bush in any case is a better position.

And coming out against the whole war would have been better yet, but at least the tides are turning and people feel they are able to criticize Bush now.

Disarming Iraq is/was a good policy. Too bad Bushboy couldn't give the inspectors the same "patience" he is now asking for in finding the WMDs!

I'm starting to get a little discouraged by the Dean/Kerry threads around here. The level of logic and discourse is not very inspiring, and the vituperative hatred for these two men, upon whom our future is resting, is weird. Posters here seem to roll towards each other like tanks, never seeing things in a new light, never conceeding anything, never (in some cases) addressing facts that are plainly in evidence. Oh well, I guess that's life in a democracy!

Dean and/or Kerry in '04!

The vituperative suspects are the usual suspects, and should be taken as the buffoons they are. A quick look at this thread will show you it is mostly the same knuckleheads.

On the other hand, look at the way Kerry and Dean are pushing each other hard! Not only that, but the newswires are filled with nine candidates slinging it at Bush. Not a bad deal!

But it is true, blustering ideologues and zealots will always make more noise than people interested in reasonable debate. As long as you keep them in their place, they shouldn't be much of a problem.

Dean '04

even though it was blatant environmental racism, and the NRA, and the Confederate flag as a "state's rights" issue, "tended to agree with the president" on the curtailing of civil rights, and sided with Bush on his military strategy in Afghanistan after Kerry and Gore pointed out its failures.

How about putting your ribbons in your sig line, so we know how brave you in comparison to that "coward' Kerry.

And not giving him a pass on supporting the Patriot Act and Chimp-boy's invasion of Iraq.

as Picasso once said, barking up the wrong tree.

All you guys can do is throw two votes against Kerrys STERLING record at opposing conservatism. And one of them you totally misrepresent as a vote for war. According to the COnstitution, the ONLY vote for war that Congress can do is to pass a declaration of war. so the Iraq Act was not a vote or the war.

As aa matter of fact, not voting for the act would have been conceding to the presidents total constittional right to WAGE war without constrain. If all of the democrats and a few republicans voted against the act, and it did not pass, that would have been giving Bush FULL authorization to use military force in Iraq at any time for any reason, without providing one shred of intelligence or evidence for doing so except his belief that the intelligence was sufficient enough for HIM ALONE. And the current efforts of congress to investigate the intelligence that Bush provided in order to convince Congress that he had good reaon to do so would not have been relevant in any way.

So to have followed what Dean said was best would have granted Bush right to engage in any kind of war he wished to, for any reason,at any time. IF the act had not passed, Congresses failure to provide legislative limitations would have been TOTAL LEGAL AGREEMENT with Bush's stance.

Notice that Howie is now being VERY quiet about the act and the vote on it.

He knows his opposition to it will be a problem for him in the next few months.

I can't believe your shamelessness.

who supports the murder of 1000's of innocent Iraqs and hundreds of Americans because he is too afraid of the political consequences of not supporting the murderer?

I call that cowardess, weakness, corruption, a lack of ideals, a lack of morals, and bad poltical decision making.

What do you call it?

Dean '04

But it's obviously important to you to keep this rather foolish rant going. To smear any Democrat who took this country's personal security as a basis for allowing this administration to support the UN's action's to disarm Saddam is way over the top. You know quite well that from the wording that of the resolution that the intent was not a blank check to wage war.

Bush knew all the facts, he controlled the powerplay, he invaded over the objections of everyone....he can explain it to the prosecuters when he's indicted for war crimes.

I'd love to see you telling Kerry to his face that he's a coward. He'd kick your ass back up to Enlightened Mountain.

Dean '04..Rollin' On

Dean '04

I would like to hear Kerry say the attack on Iraq was wrong. It was pretty clear Bush failed to get international support before the war started.

repeatedly that bush was wrong to go to war without that support.

I've seen plenty of statements from Kerry saying Bush screwed up building a coalition, but in the end he didn't oppose the invasion.

Kerry has said over and over again that he supports the war. He voted that way.

There was no "threshold" for international support. Kerry didn't demand that 100 countries support us or that France support us. Kerry caved because he was afraid of the political consequences of not signing the paper.

Alongside Gephardt's Rose Garden apperance it was the most ergregious act of political cowardice in my entire lifetime.

Sickening. Disgusting. Shameful.

That the act authorized Bush's actions as established within the act.

Tou keep shooting off your keyboard and your opinion, but you cannot change the legal wording in the act. Conditional.

FACT: Kerry supported George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Premise: Politicians who surrender the most important of their ideals for political reasons are cowards.

Premise: Kerry surrendered the most important of his political ideals (ie the ones he learned in the Vietnam war) because of political reasons.

Ergo: Kerry is a coward.

QED


A proof doesn't get any tighter than that chuckles.

Your opinion

Is no proof.

Dean is a coward...

He got out of the draft by providing exagerated medical infomation.
He attacks other candidates by spreading lies...

You still hav'nt provided proof.

Except that Dean supporters cannot provide proof and are not rational in their support of Dean.

And that his supporters may be suffering from mass delusion.

What kind of proof do you want?

Do you not adhere to Aristotalian Logic?

Do you not believe in Reason?

Just what standards do Kerry supporters adhere to if not logic?



BTW - you sound just like an old Democrat with your whiny "you can't prove anything" crap. I suggest you and Kerry stand up and be men - admit your mistakes and work to correct them. Stop your petty justifcations for cowardice and defeat.

From the act itself, that it authorized Bush to go to war without meeting certain conditions, or and that Bush met those conditions, and proved it to congress. Not the philosophical maturbation that people who make unjustifiable comments about the act engage in.

PROOF. Legal Proofs, in the real world and not from the mush that comes out of Deans head.

Because the act was a law, and must be defended or rejected on legal grounds and principals, not personal opinion.

If you are caught with an ounce of cocaine, by a cop, It may be your opinion that the drug laws are unjust, but a judge is still going to throw your ass in jail.

That kind of proof...

Real proof...

not bullshit

"From the act itself, that it authorized Bush to go to war without meeting certain conditions, or and that Bush met those conditions, and proved it to congress."

No one gives a shit if Kerry put conditions on the war or not. The fact is that Iraq was not a clear and present danger to the US, Kerry knew it and he voted anyway out of political cowardice.

Anything else is irrelevent.

No one gives a shit how Kerry wants to justify his actions, he still voted for the resolution.

If Kerry hadn't voted for the resolution, Bush would've have been even more "boxed in", the UN would've have been even stronger AND Kerry would have acted in a moral, couragous manner.

When Deans opposition to the act blows up in his face....
Without the terms set in the act. there is not one thing that Bush did that violated U.S. law or the Constitution. Lie about WMD's, lie about the Niger Uranium, lie about Iraqi support of Al Qaeda. that was illegal and that could have prevcented him from attacking Iraq. Bush was the FIRST president, to sign a document that said he would not engage in use of force before doing things that he agreed to do first. Bush was under NO legal obligation to prove anything. His beleif that Iraq constituted a threat to U.S. interests was all that was necessary to do so. His belief that the intelligence was valid wasn the only thing necessary for him to act.

ANd you cannot find legal precedent againt that concept. SO under the Dean scenario, Bush'swar is completely legal under U.S. law.

Nixo Veto's rhe War Powers Resolution and the Supremem Court has refused to rule on it, so it is completely powerless except that the president only has to inform Congress what he planned on doing.

Remember when Clinton ordered bombing strikes on a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan without Congresses approval. Well he didnt do anything illegal, even though he had bad intelligence to lead him to kill a bunch of innocent civilians. The only result was U.S. payments to the families of the dead. Clintons actions, completely constitutional.

Sorry, without that act, EVERYTHING BUSH DID was totally legal under U.S. and the constitution. EVERYTHING.

But he signed away his right to use the military autonomouly be signing the act.

The president had to PROVE it the very clear and present danger before congress would support him. But oinly after the act was signed.

Prior to the act, all that was needed was the presidents beleif that Iraq constituted a threat.

And that is what your sophistry is about. And Deans attacks on the act will prove his undoing, as it can now he used to prove that Deans stance would have given the president legal and unlimited authority to act in any way he saw fit, as is his constitutional obligation.

Sorry, you dont known what the hell you are talking about, Neither does Dean.

It is has been very, very politically clever of Kerry to wait until a few months before the primaries to start this up. I am sure that the public will be reminded of Deans attack on the act and how not passing it would have made invenstigation of what Bush knew about the intelligence totally irrelevany.

You know nothing about constitutional war powers or the ongoing battle between the legislative and executive branch over it.

And Deans ignorant behavior will be reprated over and over in the media as the Washington insiders start crucifying Bush over it.

While the outsider appears to have made an ass of himself.
The nation runs on law, legislation, legality, not opinion.

I'm a Dean supporter, but if you read Nicholas_J's arguments on this carefully, it actually makes sense as to what Kerry's actions were in the fall.

Think about this - there is nothing anyone in the Congress could have done to stop Chimpy. He is commander-in-chief, he can order any actions with the military he wants. If the Congress hadn't passed any resolution concerning his use of force, he could have proceeded with essentially no check to invade any country he wanted.

Also remember that the Congress is in Republican hands. So, the house caves immediately and gives Bush "approval" to do essentially anything he wants. Kerry, in the Senate, starts negiotiating with the White House to put some reasonable goals and limits for Congressional approval into the Senate version. They get conditions put in that limit Bush's actions to a particular geographical area, say he has to go through the UN, etc.

This is actually a victory on Kerry's part, providing some limits to Congress's approval for Bush's actions. Note that it didn't actually limit Bush's actions, only what he could do and still get Congressional approval.

Now, the question is, on the eve of the vote, should Kerry have voted for this resolution he helped put together? He knows that he is responsible for helping to draft it, so it wouldn't look right if he didn't vote for it. He also knows that it is definitely going to pass, with or without his vote. So, his particular vote is only a symbolic gesture.

Voting "NO" would give him an out if Bush screwed up the war, to criticize Bush and the war. Voting "YES" shows that he is pleased with the compromise bill they were able to come up with. He votes "YES", knowing that this vote will be misconstrued and conflated with approval for Bush to go to war.

Now, one could make the (slightly strained) argument that the "Yes" vote was actually politically more brave, in that by voting Yes Kerry ties himself to the success to Bush's skillful and diplomatic handling of the events leading up to war, as he knows his fortune is tied to Bush's by public perception. (I wouldn't actually make this argument, though - I think Kerry just didn't want to be smeared as a dove). In his speech before the vote, Kerry notes that Bush has promised him up and down that he will try to do the right thing, work multilaterally, etc. It seems naive to think Kerry would actually expect Bush to act in good faith, but let's leave that there.

Now is where the inexplicable part of Kerry's actions come in. Bush invades a sovereign nation against the wishes of the UN, and does not wait for the inspection teams to finish their jobs. Clearly Bush has failed to live up to the promises he made or the conditions he was given by Congress. Kerry does not denounce the war - he specifically will not say the invasion of Iraq was wrong. Why?

Also, meanwhile, people everywhere are conflating Kerry's vote in the fall for carte blanche approval for everything Bush does militarily. While this is not technically true, Kerry doesn't do much to disabuse them of this fallacy. Why?

This is the part that doesn't make sense. It's like he wants to be both responsible and not responsible for this war - he wants credit but no blame. He is playing both sides of the fence.

Despite whatever non-sequitur response I'm likely to get to this post, it still seems as though Kerry was just purely political in these actions, and unfortunately doesn't look too good from my perspective.

Anyway, it does kind of make sense that Bush was more boxed in by the vote than he would have been otherwise. If I had been Kerry, however, I would have voted NO in order to put some distance between myself and my potential opponent in the election. He would be in a much better position now, both politically and ethically.

I'm sure Kerry was torn by his decision - in fact, I've heard him say so in an interview. And the sheer length of Kerry's Senate floor statement indicates that he has played out all the chess moves over and over again.

However, I truly believe that Kerry felt this was the right vote, one consistent with his calls in the late 90's to Clinton to address Iraq:

“Saddam Hussein has violated ... that standard on several occasions previously and by most people’s expectation, no matter what agreement we come up with, may well do so again. The greater likelihood is that we will be called on to send our ships and our troops at one point in the future back to the Middle East to stand up to the next crisis.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

“ cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Thanks to the GOP for doing the research!

http://www.gop.com/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research061903.htm

PS - The 72-hour flip-flop is easily explained - they didn't read the rest of the article! It continues on a big "if":

Kerry said Bush made his case for war based on at least two pieces of U.S. intelligence that now appear to be wrong — that Iraq sought nuclear material from Africa and that Saddam's regime had aerial weapons capable of attacking the United States with biological material.

Still, Kerry said it is too early to conclude whether or not war with Iraq was justified. There needs to be a congressional investigation into U.S. intelligence on Iraq, he said.

"I believe I can hold President Bush accountable if they have misled us," he said.

"I don't have the answer," he said. "I want the answer and the American people deserve the answer. I will get to the bottom of this."

Of Iran Contra. HE got to the bottom of BCCI.

You want to try to get to the bottom of an intelligence investigation, it is going to take time and not standing on a soap box and yeeling so loud that the president and his advisors know whawt you plan to do, and how you plan to do it.

You want to try a legal case of great importance, you gather evidence, you plan, and it takes time, patience and persistance. One must not be a hot head when one is lawyer and trying a critical case.One must not think that one is infallible, know it all, and does not examine all possible flaws in ones own arguments that will allow the other side to win.one must begn to try to think exactly as the opposition counsel will think, and argue your own point form the opposing side to look for weakensses in ones own arguments.

You know the old cliche "Its the quite ones you have to watch out for". Well in some cases, being quiet, rather than stomping around, is the best way to hunt and catch rats.

I was thinking more of a lemming.

George has no intention of self destructing, even if it is by accident.

The only thing the dems could do is create the chance that Bush would do something illegal regarding his own power to wage war, by agreeing to conditions set by Congress in order to get their support. By Bush signing the act, rater than vetoing it Bush boxed himself into letting his TOTAL constitutional power to WAGE war be limited to some degree. When he realized he was boxed in, he just started faking intelligence, and then just decided to circumvent the act, hoping that public opinion would fall in his favor. All the democrats could do is lay out bait and wait to see if Bush put his foot into the trap.
It seems that Bush may have put his foot into that trap. But timing in springing an attack on Bush's failure to meet the conditions is critical while there is a Repuiblican majority. Has to occur very close to the 2004 elections to give Bush a greater chance of losing, and for other republican elected officials to rethink their support of Bush in light of Bush's own troubles.

is in the fucking pudding.

Doing so was wrong.

Bush circumvented the resolution...

(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.

http://www.kpid.dk/Iraq%20Resolution%20of%202002.htm

It was required for conressional support for the president to meet the terms stated above. He had to provide evidience that reliance on peaceful means lone would not be able to protect national security, or lead to the U.N. enfocing previous resolutions, or that Iraq was supporting or harboring those responsible for the events of 9/11.

Of coursse Bush circumvented the terms of the act. This act did not provide Bush any support BEFORE, meeting the terms stated above.

Now if he met the terms, and provided Valid evidence, then the letters given to the two noted officials would have triggered ANOTHER vote in order to determine agreement as to whether. If the president had provided valid evidence that the conditions noted above existed.

Now it is my tern to request that those criticising the act prove that the president in ANY WAY, met the terms indicated above. Then you will be correct in stating that the act was a vote for war.

If you cant, back off.

As I have said numerous times, this act is two edged, and Kerry is about to begin a legal assault on the president for breaking a resolution that HE signed into law.

Part of this is to prove that the president circumvented the that diplomacy and working through the U.N. would be futile, andthat the president chose to circumvent the process. Part of this requires proof that the president falisified intelligence as well.


Grahams statements about impeachment are the start of a two pronged vice on the administration.

Kerry has done this before to other presidents, and simply gave them enough rope to hang themselves.

"Kerry has done this before to other presidents, and simply gave them enough rope to hang themselves."

And, which Presidents did he do this to??

of the rightness of his vote. The 'circumvention' is good dem talking point.

IF the president circumvented diplomatic means, he violated the act

IF he did not make a valid case before congress, he circumvented the act.

IF he used intelligence he knew was false and used it to try to convince congress that there was valid reason to go unilaterallly, he both circumvented the act and committed a felony, an impeachable offense. Because HE made the act law. By not veetoing it, he agreed to its terms.


But only if he signed the act, because he was not under oath when he said that the intelligence was real.

Without the act, the use of war in Iraw was not only legal, but without legislation, the legal dictum that silence implies consent applies. So no act means that congress approved of the president acting independently.

Why doesn't he just come out and say "I regret my vote. I voted for the resolution because I thought that it would put us in a stronger negotiating position at the UN, but had I known at the time that the president would just flout the UN anyway, and had I known that much of the intelligence on which we based our votes was flawed, I would not have voted for the resolution."

A few other people who voted for it have done that, and I have respect for them, because it takes a lot for a politician to admit to being wrong. I think Kerry would regain at least some of his credibility with the left if he would say that, and coming from him, it would carry some weight for everyone.

Obviously, I cannot make new Kerry statements manifest themselves, beyond saying the vote was "based on the information given to us," but perhaps his Senate floor statement will provide some answers:

"That's why arms inspections -- and I believe ultimately Saddam's unwillingness to submit to fail-safe inspections -- is absolutely critical in building international support for our case to the world. That's how you make clear to the world we are contemplating war not for war's sake, but because it may be the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism."

"f the Iraqi regime refuses to allow the international community to find and destroy those weapons through a non-negotiable, immediate, unfettered and unconditional inspection process, then together with the international community, we will be justified in going to war to eliminate the threat."

"If the President arbitrarily walks away from - without good cause or reason - the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose his doing so."

"Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through tough new weapons inspections. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out "tough, immediate" inspections requirements and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out."

This is a point of law, not a point of opinion:

Without voting on the act, he would have given the president UNLIMTED authority to act in any way, at any time:

War Powers
The Constitution divides war powers between the Congress and the President. This division was intended by the framers to ensure that wars would not be entered into easily: it takes two keys, not one, to start the engine of war.

The Constitution's division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of "twilight zone" of concurrent powers. In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act. Although on paper it might appear that the powers of Congress with respect to war are more dominant, the reality is that Presidential power has been more important--in part due to the modern need for quick responses to foreign threats and in part due to the many-headed nature of Congress.

The Supreme Court has had relatively little to say about the Constitution's war powers. Many interesting legal questions--such as the constitutionality of the "police action" in Korea or the "undeclared war" in Viet Nam--were never decided by the Court. (Although the Supreme Court had three opportunities to decide the constitutionality of the war in Viet Nam, it passed on each one.)

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm

This is what LAWYERS are taught about Constitutional Law and War Powers

Notice, in the express absence of congressional limits, the president is free to act. THey cannot STOP militadry action, but they can set limits and conditions to channel his actions and direct what he must do before he acts: PRIOR TO ACTING. And the act must be specific. If it does not include ALL of the possible reasons the president has for using force, but only one, he can change his reasons, and then act freely again unless congress then writes another piece of legislation.

The vote to set conditions on the presidents acting in order for congress to support him was the ONLY power congress had to prevent Bush from going to war on his own at any time, for any reason he chose, even that Saddam had attempted to assisinate a president of the United States, which is a legal constitutional reason for going to war.

Without the act, Every action Bush has taken is TOTALLY LEGAL under his constitutionally appointed powers and obligations. Only the act creates the potentional of the president having violated an act he signed into law. IF it can be PROVEN his knew that the intelligence provided to him was fake before he gave it to Congress, he has comitted a felony. Without the act, presenting information he knew was false to Congress is not illegal, just bad judgement. Unless he gave the information in testimony under oath.

Clinton lied numerous times to Congress, but until he did so under oath, he could not be impeached. When Bush provided phony intelligence to congress to comply with the act, if he knew the information was phony he violated the act. Becasue the act required that he provide valid reasons for going to war without U.N. cooperation. This is the heart of the argument of circumvention of the act. As it was in Iran Contra. Since the U.S. did not directly deal with Iran, the administration stated they did not break U.S. law precenting the U.S. from having ANY relations with Iraq. It was circumvention of the law by going through intermediaries to make drug for weapons deals that was illegal. A legal subtlty , but an illegality nonetheless. That is how legal cases like this are fought, mostly on subtle differnces and interpretations.

Sort of like being charge with murder, because even though you did not pull the trigger, you paid the guy who did. Not quite a subtle, but thats whay they create laws thjat make someone who pays someone to kill as guilty as the killer.

Without voting on the act, he would have given the president UNLIMTED authority to act in any way, at any time:

War Powers
The Constitution divides war powers between the Congress and the President. This division was intended by the framers to ensure that wars would not be entered into easily: it takes two keys, not one, to start the engine of war.

The Constitution's division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of "twilight zone" of concurrent powers. In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act. Although on paper it might appear that the powers of Congress with respect to war are more dominant, the reality is that Presidential power has been more important--in part due to the modern need for quick responses to foreign threats and in part due to the many-headed nature of Congress.

The Supreme Court has had relatively little to say about the Constitution's war powers. Many interesting legal questions--such as the constitutionality of the "police action" in Korea or the "undeclared war" in Viet Nam--were never decided by the Court. (Although the Supreme Court had three opportunities to decide the constitutionality of the war in Viet Nam, it passed on each one.)

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm

This is what LAWYERS are taught about Constitutional Law and War Powers

Notice, in the express absence of congressional limits, the president is free to act. THey cannot STOP militadry action, but they can set limits and conditions to channel his actions and direct what he must do before he acts: PRIOR TO ACTING. And the act must be specific. If it does not include ALL of the possible reasons the president has for using force, but only one, he can change his reasons, and then act freely again unless congress then writes another piece of legislation.

To watch, as Kerry uses the Act itself againt the president.
It is exactly the same way that he handles Iran Contra, and BCCI.

He found laws that the administrations had circumvented, by indirect means, and then they were found that the attempt to circumvent the law was an illegal act.

but I wish Kerry all speed in bringing it about. It's good to have him attacking Bush at least, instead of giving his tacit approval for a horrible, mistaken war.

To act jump before you are prepared, and look for signs that the public opinions is moving to support your concepts and efforts to deal with what has happened. And that this public opinion will frighten a majority enough to support ythe Democrats against Bush, rather than risk their own re-election by supporting him.

You can argue whether the war was moral, or immoral to your hearts content. But it is ONLY the law, that give force and brings punishment to immoral actions if they are found to have also been illegal.


The Nazi leaders in World War II were completely and legally innocent of all crimes under German law. It was not illegal to gas a Jew, Gypsy, Slav, or Homosexual. Or enslave those defined as sub-human under German law. It was necessary to prove that those laws were designed to subvert morality and humanity. A similar principal exists here. Many many people beleived that it would be just to execute the perperators on the spot. The Russians beleieve that the entire German people shoud have been anihilated or enslaved. THe U.S. decided that the perptrators MUST be tried. Legally, IN order to make a point that no no nation can create laws or or circumvent laws in order to perpetrate inhuman political stances and regimes.

Bush has tried to subvert the very principals it was instrumental in forming at Nuremberg.

Kerry could get on a soap box, and yell as loud as Dean did, But this will not undo what Bush has done, or create a legal precident that will prevent Bush from doing the same to Iran, or North Korea.
Or to prevent a future neo-con from doing the same under ANY circumstance they see fit.

We must have the sense of vision to TAKE the time to atttempt to do this properly and legally, rather than bungle it.

it is also important to try to swing public opinion your way.

If the press hadn't suddenly decided that "yellowcake" was a scandal, after letting so many other obvious scandals pass, would Kerry still be relatively quiet about this? We'll never know, but I hope not.

In any case, I hope that ALL Democratic efforts, on every front, to stop Bush from starting another unprovoked invasion are succesful.

Kerry probably wouldn't be nearly as forceful. Dean has moved the debate decidedly towards the anti-war side and the rest of the candidates (well most - Sharpton, Kucinich, and Moseley-Braun were already there) have moved in that direction.

As a Kerry fan, I say - Good! I think Dean and Kerry should thumb-wrestle for the nomination and everyone else should play Twister to figure out the VP. Just kidding, natch! (Stan Lee was the only person I know that ever shortened "naturally," but it seems to have stuck). I truly think Kerry is the stronger candidate, but Dean is certainly a strong alternative, mostly because of his anti-war stance.

Congrats to Dean that he is moving things to the "anti war" side (I totally disagree, BUSH is moving it that way).

I sure as hell hope we don't follow Dean toward more guns, more capital punishments and a shitty environment.

Dean? What you want your Republican to really say!!!!

All thecandidates MUST be on the same page, all the anti-Bush people must be on the same page regarding the nature of the act. To state that it WAS a vote for war and DID give Bush authorization to go to war without FURTHER consultation with Congress, as those who state that the Act did, creates a problem in gaining enough public support against the president for NOT complying with the act. Several candidates have created a PUBLIC opinion about the act by misreprenting the act as a blank check to go to war. Which it was not.

Its conditionality must be recognized by the PUBLIC, not by Congress or the president (who already know, but the dems could not force the issue while the presidents public popularity was up in the 70 percent area, and while the public was still saying that the war was justified, even without proof of WMD's, Now that they are not so certain that this is so because it seems the president many have lied and used false intelligence, and his ratings are slipping regarding the war, conditions to contest the presidents claims about meeting the conditions are riper). The Republicans have skirted the issue of the conditionality, and the president has totally said that he met the conditions. He democrats ALL must be firm thatbthe act was conditional, and that the president DID NOT comply with the terms to gain enough public support to begin the delicate legal actions and political moves needed to get a large enough number of Representatives and Senators on the Republican side to decide that they would rather not risk running a re-election campaign with public opinion against them.

In order to contest the presidents actions with regards to the conditionality of the act, timing is everything. IN order to beat him in 2004, a scandal or investigation must come as close as possible to the next election in order to push the Republicans chances of re-electing Bush to as low a level as possible, regardless of WHO is nominated. To do so this far in advance of the election will give the Republicans time to blunt the edges of the attack and then move on increasing the presidents approval ratings.

Bush STILL polls ahead of all of the democratic candidates though some come close to the statistical level of an equal percentage of Democratic votes as Republican ones. There must not be a repeat of 2000, by having an election SO close that it is possible to change the vote count by small and less undetectable means. The next election MUST come at a time and using political tactics that insure there can be NO doubt as to who has won.

"To state that it WAS a vote for war and DID give Bush authorization to go to war without FURTHER consultation with Congress, as those who state that the Act did, creates a problem in gaining enough public support against the president for NOT complying with the act. Several candidates have created a PUBLIC opinion about the act by misreprenting the act as a blank check to go to war. Which it was not."

The problem is everyone is misrepresenting this vote as a vote for war, not just candidates. Biden just the other day, said he was "proud of (his) vote for war". The Republicans are certainly shouting that this is what Kerry voted for. And Kerry has not cleared it up. It may be unfair for him to have to do so, but he has created a political problem for himself with his vote. (And his non-opposition to the invasion, but that is a topic for another post).

The perception of what his vote means can and most likely will matter more than the reality as to its ultimate outcome. Kerry had to have recognized this, but he has not done enough to counter it.

From professors of consitutional law, plus going through a case filed against the Bush administration "John Doe v. George W. Bush"

Arguing the case that the president tooks interpreted the Iraq Act as giving authority to go to war, but the plaintiff provide vast amounts of case law that prove that the Iraq Act required a second congressional act after Bush notified the information that he began to use force. The federal judges ruled against John Doe, but it was based on the fact that Congress had no power to authorize waging war to begin with, and cited a number of other cases which allowed the president to use force militarily regardless of what Congress did. That is under U.S. law.

But legal scholars are arguing that once Bush took his case to the U.N. he had given up his authority to act unilaterally as the U.N. Charter States that in the case of one nation going to the U.N. to request action be taken against another nation gives up their right to act without the approval of the Security Counsel and that the nation trying to make the case for sanctions or force against a nation that is being accused of violating international conventions, must agree that the final arbiter in the case is the Security Counsel and that they must wait for the Security Counsel to decide on how to handle the situation and abide by the time frames established by the U.N. for its various agancies to complete the reports that they are to provide to the Security Counsel to use to come to a decision.

I have about 400 pages of documentation and scholarly opinions to go through.

The John Doe Case stated that the president already had authority to act in regards to Iraq based on both U.S. and U.N. decisions made in 1991 before the Gulf War. There are a few other cases involved, that go as far back as Nixon. Several against Reagan, Several against Clinton.

There are two interpretations of the act, one of consitutional constructionists, with a strict interpretation of the constitution The other of non-constructionist, with a lose interpretation.

The federal court stated that Congresses Iraq Act as irrelevant.
The prfessors of Constitutional Law vary from stating the act was relevant, to stating that the U.N. was the primary decision making body, and only direct immediate threat could justify the presidents actions, once the president decided to tak the case to the U.N. Has to do with treaty obilgations and being signatories of various coinventions in which the U.S. agrees to give international conventions and organizations the right to decide on arguments between signatories of theses treaties, conventions, and charters.

It is a large mess of paper work but I will wend my way through it and present whatever abstract that I can. Most of them were PDF files and I have yet to figure how to cut from a PDF ( I only have acrobat readers). I have thought to use my scanner in OCR modeand convert to Word files. But thts a lot of work.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that everyone else being wrong is a problem for Kerry. What is Kerry's plan to deal with that?

I thought on the other thread we had peace in here, but the Dean-freaks and their delusion of what Howard Dean is continue to provide enough vitriol against John Kerry to make the Republicans look tame.

Support Dean, but the absurd attacks against a man who has actually fought for our beliefs in the Senate-as opposed to galevanting around the country talking about them- deserves more credit that you people are giving them.

Yea...Let's let John Kerry resing and replace him with someone handpicked by Bush.

If everyone who "supported" the war were to resigned we'd have how many Democrats?

As far as courage and compassion about our troops blow it out your ass Dean supporters. Kerry has been a tireless fighter for VA rights, has worked with Senator McCain to address the Vietnam POW issues that continue to this day and earned several medals of courage and valor in a war he came to oppose.

Screw you all...for the way you have treated John Kerry. If Dean wins this nomination I may very well not vote for him and will urge my friends to vote Green.

After all it might not be Nader. Who knows who might want to run against George Bush and end this nightmare? Maybe they'll convince someone who might win to do it.