Excuse ME!

Opinion
WAR HAWKS SHOW CALLOUS DISREGARD FOR WORKING-CLASS TROOPS
By Cynthia Tucker
Fri Mar 24, 11:03 PM ET

"If I didn't believe we had a plan for victory, I wouldn't leave our people in harm's way. ... I understand people's lives are being lost." -- President Bush, March 21, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average American understands that soldiers who fought in Vietnam were unfairly blamed for a war they did not start, for lies they did not tell, for mismanaged battle plans they could not salvage. So we're determined not to make that mistake again. This time around, most of us salute our soldiers.

Snip...

Their callousness about other people's children aside, it's not just Cheney and Bush whom I hold responsible for the deaths of more than 2,300 hundred Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. It's also men like Sen. John Kerry and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vietnam veterans who had seen young men die in combat. They knew better than to take the nation to war on the wings of a lie.

That they did was not only unjust; it was immoral.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Tucker is editorial page editor for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. She can be reached by e-mail: cynthia@ajc.com.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucas/20060325/cm_ucas/warhawksshowcallousdisregardforworkingclasstroops

Perpetuating the mischaracterization that many critics of the Vietnam war opposed the troops is irresponsible. Lumping John Kerry into the same group as the Bush administration in a commentary titled “WAR HAWKS SHOW CALLOUS DISREGARD FOR WORKING-CLASS TROOPS” is illogical. In fact, Kerry was one of the most prominent critics of U.S. policy during the Vietnam war. Related to Iraq, if you look at Kerry's speeches from the early 1990s to two months before the current Iraq war, you will see that he never promoted the war that Bush started and was consistent in his opposition to war. If your implication is that the vote to authorize the use of force was a vote for war, that is a mischaracterization of a vote to hold Bush accountable. By now it should be clear to all that Bush has and will continue to act without regard for the rule of law.

Bush defied Congress with regard to spying. He trampled over the FISA law which allowed him to conduct warrantless search for a 72-hour period, but never on Americans, and he did that anyway.

According to the War Powers Resolution, Bush could have legally gone to war after consulting Congress, which is what the resolution was, even if it did not pass. The resolution was specific, Bush violated the specifics. The resolution was in line with the WPR, but it was not a declaration to go to war. It was an authorization to use force providing specific conditions were met. Under the WPR, a similar condition exists, but does not preclude the president from going to war without prior Congressional approval.

As in the 72-hour period required to file a warrant for surveillance, Bush only needed to report back to Congress after executing a war--- provide justification so to speak. He could have taken that route, the Republicans in congress and most of the country was behind him. He would have done it and it would have been a done deal. By the time Bush had to report back, that "Mission Accomplished" statement would have already been made.

So the IWR didn't make it easier, it specifically stated what criteria had to be met if he started a war. Without the resolution he would have defied Congress. With the resolution he not only defied Congress, he defied specific criteria laid out by Congress.

Although Bush manipulated the evidence, Congress learned of this long before the war. As a result, John Kerry issued a stern warning to Bush not to take action. From Kerry’s speech on national security -- Georgetown University Thursday, January 23, 2003:

I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.


Bush took the country to war anyway.

Linking Iraq to WMD, along with Bush's repeated linking of Iraq to 9/11, created the impression of an imminent threat to many in the public, which is why he enjoyed high public support.


The applicable section of the War Powers Act:

Sec. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad
(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

snip...

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/warpower.htm


This article by John Dean lays out the problem:

The last great debate over presidential war powers

Truman's decision became the precedent for the unpopular Vietnam War (1961-1975). By 1973, the war-weary Congress challenged the President's war powers, concerned it had lost all power over the unending war in Vietnam, by introducing a sweeping War Powers Resolution

This resolution, designed to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President" are involved in decisions to use American military forces, acknowledges that a President can start a war without Congress -- so long as he advises Congress he is doing so. Then, if Congress does not either declare war or otherwise authorize the use of the military within 60 days from the start of the hostilities, the President must terminate such use of the military.

Over the veto of a Watergate-weakened Richard Nixon, the War Powers Resolution was adopted. But presidents have largely ignored it.

The War Powers Resolution, moreover, seemed to have pleased no one. Liberals, for example, criticized the resolution for permitting the president to unilaterally initiate hostilities for 60 days, before Congress can exercise its constitutional powers.


http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/columns/fl.dean.warpowers/


There is so much disinformation and misinformation being presented as fact by the media, pundits and columnists that the only thing easy to understand is why the public is confused.

Published on Friday, March 24, 2006 by The Nation
Didn't This Call for Withdrawal From Iraq Merit Attention?
by John Nichols

Here's an interesting issue for the "liberal media" to ponder:

In January, 2004, when the Des Moines Register made an unexpected endorsement of John Edwards as the best presidential pick for participants in Iowa's Democratic Caucuses, it was national news. The Register, an extremely influential newspaper because of its wide circulation in a relatively small state, shook up the Democratic dance card. The Register's editors found themselves being interviewed on national television and radio programs, as political writers for daily newspapers across the country stumbled over themselves to assess the significance of this particularly influential newspaper's endorsement of a still relatively unknown senator. As it turned out, the attention to the endorsement was merited, as Edwards himself acknowledged that his strong second place finish in the caucuses owed much to the boost he got from one of Middle America's most historically powerful and respected publications.

So what would happen if the same newspaper were to come out this year with a strong editorial calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq? And what if that editorial represented a reversal of the newspaper's previous "stay-the-course position?

Would that be news? Would national media outlets that are supposedly trying to ascertain the changing sentiments of the nation with regard to the war, and that are already busy charting the 2008 presidential competition in Iowa, take notice of an important development in a bellweather state? Might it be considered significant that a large daily newspaper with a national reputation has joined what Editor & Publisher magazine's Greg Mitchell -- who has for two years been noting the lack of serious discussion about ending the war on the nation's editorial pages -- refers to as "the very thin ranks of those proposing an exit strategy"?

The answer, lamentably, is "no."

more...

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0324-32.htm

But the military occupation of Iraq has achieved all it can. It's time to redeploy the troops, keeping in mind that the original mission has long since been achieved. No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq threaten America, and a dictator has been deposed. A democratically elected parliament is in place.

Whatever happens from here must be left up to the Iraqis themselves.

Your article displays EXACTLY what is wrong with journalism in this country. While launching a much deserved attack on the war hawks of this country, at the last minute you quiver.

KERRY: Obviously not. No way. And I said during the campaign. I said it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. I said -- look, I think everybody has made it clear that at the time, given the information that we were given, I believe it was the right vote. It was a vote based on seven-and-a-half years of destroying weapons of mass destruction, and then we lost the inspectors. We had a two-year period of no inspectors, even though we'd been destroying weapons for seven-and-a-half years, and the CIA tells you, he's got weapons. I think it was the right vote. If I'd been president, I'd have wanted that power.

But the president said he was going to do meticulous planning. He said he would exhaust the remedies of the inspections and the U.N., and he said he would go to the war as a last resort. He broke every one of those promises. And everything, every step of the way -- you just listen to Colin Powell, who tells you, there was a small cabal run by Dick Cheney and people in the White House. They captured the policy. They didn't even look at the State Department plans for the post-war period.

I went to Georgetown University in January of 2003, and I said, Mr. President, do not rush to war. The difficult part is not winning the ground war, it's winning the peace. And that's exactly what's happened.

Q: Has your vote to authorize the president to go to war in Iraq hurt you, and has it constrained you from criticizing the war?

The president misled America. I don't know about deliberately, but he misled America, he misled the world. He misled Americans in Congress about how he was going to go to war. About what he would do. About why. We now have a new rationale for having gone to war. And I say to voters plainly and clearly: I laid out in my speech on the Senate floor precisely the steps that I think we needed to take to use the authority that we were giving the president. If I had been president, I would have used that authority more effectively....and I would have brought countries to our side through effective diplomacy, by being patient, by using up their excuses, by working through the international objections, so that if we needed to go to war we went to war with other countries on our side that shared the cost.

I have been 100% consistent. Saddam Hussein was a threat, he needed to be held accountable to the U.N. resolutions, but it needed to be done in the right way. George Bush did it in the wrong way, and broke his promises to Americans.

Q: Did Bush mislead you personally?

Well, in the sense that any senator or congressman votes based on promises of the president. I take that personally ... that he was going to do the things that he said he was going to do. And that's the job of a president. When you break (your promise on policy), you've broken your trust.

Snip…

Q: Did you vote for presidential authority to go to war because you thought the president should be given the benefit of the doubt?

I didn't give him the benefit of the doubt. Issues of war and peace go outside of partisan politics. When the president of the United States says this is the way I'm going to do something, you ought to have the right to believe that president. And if there's anything that makes me more motivated about this, it is the fact that he went back on his word with respect to an issue that involves the lives of our young Americans. Americans know that this president did not go to war as a last resort.

Q: Did he intend from the beginning to go to war, no matter what the U.N. or allies said?

But he changed that, you see. This is where the word of the president is so important. Jim Baker wrote publicly how important it was to go to the U.N. Brent Scowcroft wrote publicly. The word around Washington was, the president's father is very concerned, and they don't want to go in this direction. So the president then comes forward and says, you're right. We're going to do these other things.

Q: Was Bush merely paying lip service to trying the diplomatic route?

It appears more and more evident that that may have been the truth, which is why the president broke his word. That's why I say he misled Americans.

Q: What may have been the truth?

That they intended to go no matter what, regardless of what happened. If that is true, he even more misled the nation. If that is true.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-22-kerry-cover_x.htm?csp=14