Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gates Contradicts Bush, Says ‘I Don’t Know’ If 2002 War Authorization Is Still Valid

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 11:57 AM
Original message
Gates Contradicts Bush, Says ‘I Don’t Know’ If 2002 War Authorization Is Still Valid
Gates Contradicts Bush, Says ‘I Don’t Know’ If 2002 War Authorization Is Still Valid »

During today’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he doesn’t know whether the 2002 resolution authorizing force in Iraq is still valid, acknowledging that his view differs with that of President Bush.

During his questioning of Gates, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) noted that the authorization listed two purposes for the use of force: 1) to defend the United States against Saddam Hussein and 2) enforce U.N. resolutions against Hussein’s government. Byrd asked Gates, since Hussein’s government no longer exists, “do you agree that this authorization no longer applies to the ongoing conflict in Iraq?”

Gates responded: “I think the honest answer, Senator Byrd, is that I don’t know the answer to that question.” Gates admitted that his answer contradicts that of the President, who believes the resolution “still continues to authorize the actions that we are taking in Iraq.”

video and more at:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/09/gates-authorization/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. Ruh Ro, all the other guys who disagreed with shrub RETIRED!
I suppose Gates thinks because he's such a new appointment he's probably safe, but I wouldn't bet the farm on that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. oops, he spoke against the powers
he will be at great risk ....

The resolution requires the "reporting" that the House has included in their proposed funding bill, why it is these idiots can't read their own laws and stand up for the rule of law and the citizens and against the admin is beyond me.

Chrisp on a crutch, they need backbones and better advisors.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
18. there goes your medal of freedom, pal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. LOL, yup, you are right
no medal of freedom for him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. heh
Edited on Wed May-09-07 12:10 PM by bigtree
go Byrd (and Sen. Clinton, who has co-sponsored the initiative to end the authorization)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarface2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. so the illegal invasion of iraq...
is apparently even more illegal now!! great!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosemary2205 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
5. Byrd is wrong.
The resolution http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html says "Iraq" not "Saddam Hussein"

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.


The inference in the "Whereas" section in the beginning is about Saddam but the actually wording of the resolution says "Iraq" -- and "Iraq" still exists. Plus Bushco's argument is that "Iraq" still poses a threat to the United States because al Queda has moved in.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. what "threat?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosemary2205 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. You'd have to ask Bushco.
Personally I'm more askeered of drunken assholes behind the wheel than I am of the Iraq boogyman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. "(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. "
Enforce what UN Security Council Resolutions?

And the biggest part of the resolution that you miss it the REQUIRED REPORTING TO CONGRESS FOR THE FUNDING RELATIVE TO THE PROGRESS MADE!

(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 resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.


As they are the purse string, the reporting to Congress is essential to that silly ole War Powers Act and this resolution. The funding bill proposed by the house with the "benchmarks" is unnecessary if they would just follow the law.

Additionally, I wish someone would explain to me how the fuck you can site to the UN Resolutions as authority and reason for war while all along you are violating the terms of the UN Charter you signed and the laws (including the constitution) that allowed the US to enter into the treaty/charter with the UN in the first place.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
6. My thoughts
Edited on Wed May-09-07 01:10 PM by bonito
does it make any difference now since we are there, and in the new funding budget it gives them authority to go to war with Iran, so it looks to me its all talk about nothing as the pnac plan continues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. of course the new withdrawal bill doesn't authorize attacking Iran
any more than the original IWR did.

If Bush takes that action without congressional authorization, it will be as illegal as the Iraq invasion. The rub is that legislators have to enforce the War Powers Act or at least use it to exert their own equal authority. Once that's been accomplished, and Bush is still obstinate, it would be up to the Courts to resolve the question. Or else, Congress could exercise their right to impeach to seek a legislative rebuke of the disregard of their authority which would include the Executive's expulsion from office. That would take a political will and the support within the body to carry that out to restrain Bush in his determination to commit our forces using the loophole presidents have used for decades to deploy troops and seek congressional authorization later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Yeah the great Democratic move to end the war in Iraq
Allows for war with Iran!!

Sheesh!

And that fact keeps getting buried under the rug...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. Yeah the great Democratic move to end the war in Iraq
Allows for war with Iran!!

Sheesh!

And that fact keeps getting buried under the rug...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. Yeah the great Democratic move to end the war in Iraq
Allows for war with Iran!!

Sheesh!

And that fact keeps getting buried under the rug...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. Yeah the great Democratic move to end the war in Iraq
Allows for war with Iran!!

Sheesh!

And that fact keeps getting buried under the rug...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikelgb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
8. you forget the plenary powers of the unitary executive branch®
IWR is just used by the admin the slap congress in the face with their complicity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
9. IWR imbeds WPA wording...
Edited on Wed May-09-07 01:17 PM by EVDebs
IWR of Oct 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

imbedded WPA of 1973
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm

which includes the language that requires 'clear' (read TRUTHFUL) 'situations' and 'circumstances' before committing US troops to hostile actions

"CONSULTATION

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations. "

And while the 'Powell Doctrine' is not law, per se, it is common sense:

"Essentially, the Doctrine expresses that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/iraq/powelldoctrine_short.html


Iraq violates all of this, and the law (WPA '73) too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
12. does anyone besides me think this guy might have a smidgen of integrity?
or is he just another who got in there and realized he had to cover his own ass?????????

( maybe integrity isn't the right word..)

this isn't the first time he has come out on the opposite side of this administration..

fly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mile18blister Donating Member (460 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Gates is loyal to *'s daddy.
Poppy tried to rein in his spoiled bratty kid with the Iraq Study Group recommendations. * ignored the lifeline he was tossed and "surged" the number of troops instead. Since the direct approach didn't work, Gates (and Poppy) are trying to keep Chimpy from being impeached or charged with war crimes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC