Do You See Any Meaningful Distinction Between...

[DistressedAmerican]

"voting for war" and "voting Bush the authority to go to war"?

It was the same damn thing if you ask me. Giving Bush the authority to go to war and thinking he wouldn't is the silliest thing I have ever heard. It is not unlike voting the fox authority to raid the henhouse and thinking he won't do it. Anyone that claims that was their thinking at the time is either lying or is one dumb SOB (or DOB as the case may be).

What do you think?

Is there any real distinction there?

On edit: Since many seem to think there is, could someone explain what I am missing?

[Dem Agog]

1. HUGE distinction!

Back when * asked for this authority, it was not widely known beyond DU that he was a schemer, a crook, a complete liar, and that he and his administration were deliberately deceiving the world in order to destabilize the middle east so they could line their pockets with oil profits.

DU is about the only place that called * out for all these things right up front. That was not the mainstream view.

If I were in congress and a President, who had not yet been proven as a criminal, presented cooked evidence to me (that I did not know had been falsified) and asked for authority, I would give it to him, believing that he would use it judiciously.

I don't think most people in congress wanted to believe that * was lying, and that he was just dying to go to war for his own profits and personal issues.

[EFerrari]

6. It wasn't obvious except to anyone who'd watched his campaign?!

[DistressedAmerican]

9. Or Had Ever Heard Of The PNAC For That Matter.

[EFerrari]

12. I've said this before. If they now need political cover

that's one thing.

But let's not lie to ourselves or to each other.

[DistressedAmerican]

16. All The Cover They Need Is The Bad Intel They Were Fed.

But, if they embrace that, they are also embracing that they were ready to go to war on what they knew. Some may say that was not their fault. They were lied to. That is plenty of political cover.

Personally, even with the bad intel, I think they should have known better.

Here's why:
The administration wanted a smoking gun worse than anything. They were feeding their intel to the inspectors who were looking for it. Time and time again they came up empty. That is grounds to question EVERYTHING that the administration was doing and saying. Anyone that didn't wasn't keeping America safe, they were sticking their heads in the sand and hoping no one would call them unpatriotic.

That sucks.

[EFerrari]

18. Yep. And while they were lied to, the intel they got

was still FULL of qualifiers.

You know, the ones Bush's idiots removed from the SOTU? What the Critters got has been partially declassified. It's full of "may" and "possibly" and other similars.

CYA led Congress AND us and IRAQ into this. That is shamefully sucky.

[MADem]

24. But the intel they did NOT see basically said the whole thing was

bullshit! Had they seen that, it might have changed more than a few votes.

It's hard to really know at this juncture. At some point in future, the truth will come out, when those documents, both the ones provided to the Intel Committees, and the ones that were held back, are eventually declassified and released.

[MindPilot]

11. I disagree. There were millions in the streets all over the world

who didn't buy into the lies, and they obviously were not all DU'rs.

As I've said many times before, if I, with nothing more than two brain cells and a modem could figure it out, I simply cannot accept that a congressman or senator with all the access that position grants them could be deceived. If they thought for a minute that Bush would not use that authorization to justify an invasion they were--I think deliberately--ignorant. The vote to allow Bush to invade Iraq I see as a dereliction of duty on the part of those who voted for it.

[Beam Me Up]

17. Congress wanted this 'war' as much as * did. Look how they voted.

I'm agreeing with you MindPilot. I was one of the millions protesting. I was one of the millions of people who knew this war was WRONG WRONG WRONG from before it even started. I knew we couldn't trust this idiot and his masters further than we can :puke: and knew they are in some way responsible for the events of 9/11 that was the keystone lie of lies they were telling.

HOW COULD Congress and Senators NOT know? I'm no body. They have access to sources of information far superior to mine. If they didn't know they SHOULD have known.

(Yes, I woke up on the wrong side of the bed. I'm FED UP with this so called "GOVERNMENT" shit!!)

[Tesha]

20. I think your "read" is correct.

> they were--I think deliberately--ignorant.

I think your "read" on the situation is correct. They were deeply,
deeply afraid of being called cowards or traitors or non-macho or
some such, so they closed their eyes, crossed their fingers, smiled
and voted to give Shrub his war toys, hoping against hope that he
would have the brains not to shoot his **** off with them.

Bush: "Bang!"

Democrats: "Oops!"

Tesha

[MADem]

21. I agree, there is a distinction

It's sort of like someone (the Monkey) running into the house and telling his wife (the Congress) there is a dangerous bear on the street. He asks his wife to give him the family gun that she keeps locked up in a safe (only she has the combination), so he use can use it to scare the dangerous bear away. The wife believes him, so she hands over the gun, and thinks that the husband will just shoot it into the air to get rid of the bear, and not actually hurt it.

Next thing ya know, there is a huge commotion down the road, and the wife goes down to find the well known neighbor from the other side of the hood, his entire family, his house, his car, shot to pieces--dead, blood on the road, splattered on the fences, a total mess. The wife is BULLSHIT--look at this mess, who will clean it up, it will cost a fortune, everyone in the neighborhood will hate us, you SAID you were only gonna threaten a bear, and now all these people are DEAD!!!

So, everyone in the neighborhood starts asking questions, and come to find out, the husband has done business with the dead neighbor before, the dead neighbor has some stuff that the husband covets and wants to steal, and besides, the dead neighbor tried to stick his daddy with a knife once. The husband made up the bear story so he could convince his wife to hand him the gun, revenge his daddy, and steal his stuff. So now, the wife has to listen to the whole neighborhood telling her what an ASSHOLE her husband is, and the wife has to spend the family treasury to pay compensation for all the death and destruction that the husband caused!

[DistressedAmerican]

27. That Falls Apart When The Guy Asking For The Gun Is KNOWN To Have An Old

grudge against the bear and want it dead. Also when he is known to be hanging out with a shitload of bear hunters that are telling him how he "HAS TO GET THAT BEAR!"

Since the wife in this scenario had info to all of that history with which to judge the husband's request, she should have stuck her head out of the damn window to see if there was a bear at all. Failing to do so, I would say she is complicit.

[MADem]

29. Ahhh, but the wife has post-traumatic stress of the worst sort, ya see!!

Because the guy who lived next DOOR to the bear, Osama Bin Wolf, had recently come over to the wife's yard and tore up a couple of her garden sheds and killed a bunch of her chickens...and she was still cleaning up the mess and comforting the chickens that did not get killed. And the husband strutted around and ASSURED her that he would get revenge for that!

She was trusting him to be a SENSIBLE tough guy, not a crazed asswipe!

[DistressedAmerican]

34. That Bastard! Sure Did Make A Lot Of Folks Lose Their Minds.

Although, when many, many of the neighbors are aware of his tendencies to want that bear dead even though it did not attack anyone's chickens, it makes you wonder what she was missing. Afterall they all say the horrible incident with Bin Wolf.

Many of them kept level heads and wanted to get the fucking wolf. Not the husband. Still obsessed with that damn bear that tried to knife Pa!

Wifey sounds a bit codependent to me.
:evilgrin:

[MADem]

37. It could well be--also, that was an incestuous marriage!!!

If you look at the wife's bloodline, she was more than half-related to her husband, and come to find out, was getting a huge amount of extra cash from her husband's cronies on the sly...ya know what they say, blood WILL tell!

[MindPilot]

33. Good analogy but....

The monkey had stated in the past that he wanted to go after the neighbor and all he needed was a bear to come down the street so he would have an excuse run outside with a gun.

The big problem is the only bears in that neighborhood are safely confined in the local zoo.

Given that information, the wife didn't even bother to look out the window to see if there really was a bear in the street before giving the monkey the gun.

[MADem]

39. He brought her a photo of a bear in the street!

She didn't know it had been been photoshopped by the husband's pals! :D

[DistressedAmerican]

40. Satelite Imagery Of The Bear (Well Not The Bear So Much)

Just a few caves where it was alleged he was plotting to come after all the neighbors and their damn chickens!

[MADem]

48. Heh, heh!

I am laughing like hell at a thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5493480 about a children's book for Democrats, and this little tale might also be a candidate as well!

Say, you know how to do the photoshop thing, perhaps this tale, or the one I suggested on the other thread, might be an amusing project for you!!!

Once upon a time, there was a bear....!!!

[DistressedAmerican]

50. You Simply MUST Read This Then...

"3 Little Pigs In Washington DC - A Plamegate Indictment Tale For The Kids! "

It is on my site here:
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distresseamerican/commentary.htm

Scroll down a bit, you can't miss it.

[MADem]

55. Hahahahahahaha!!!

...Then he went to see the second pig. He was a very old and grumpy pig. A pig with a bad heart and a temper to match! His name was Richard but, everyone just called him Dick. Scooter worked for Dick. Well, until the wolf threw him in the solitary little pen anyway....!!

Priceless!!

[MrBenchley]

30. Exactly so....

Good post.

[Yollam]

78. Members of Congress are expected...

...to do more than just browse the headlines of USA Today and listen to the late-night comedians when making the decisions of LIFE AND DEATH for our troops and tens of thousands of civilians.

Just because your Aunt Tillie didn't know, doesn't mean the info was not out there, and from plenty of reputable sources. I expect better, MUCH better of my representatives. You should too.

[lumberjack_jeff]

111. The answer to that question is obvious...

and can best be answered with another question:
"Do you think that anyone who voted to authorize war would have been angry that their will had been thwarted if war were subsequently avoided?"

A "vote for war" is a directive. A vote to authorize the president to take military action if he deems it necessary, may be an act of profoundly misplaced trust, but it's not a vote for war.

The only way congress "votes for war" is by declaring it.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. There is absolutely a distinction.

Many Democrats wanted the President to let the weapons inspectors finish their jobs and getting more definitive evidence before going into war. The resolution voted upon does not instruct the President to immediately go to war, nor does it declare war. It only says that Congress is behind him if he ultimately determines that war is necessary.

[muriel_volestrangler]

91. If their wish was for weapons inspectors, then they should have voted

for that, not "go to war with any country, but especially Iraq, that you think is a threat, any time you want". If they thought it was just about weapons inspectors, then they could have had another resolution withdrawing the authority to go to war, after the UN resolution had got the inspectors in.

They gave Bush a blank cheque. His past behaviour of tearing up international agreements, and his rhetoric of "you are with us or against us" made it clear they were saying "go to war with Iraq when you want".

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

94. Well, if Democrats were in charge, perhaps that's what would've happened.

Unfortunately, they were not, and so we got IWR. You vote what's on the docket.

[muriel_volestrangler]

114. So they voted to authorise Bush to go to war

knowing that, unless they retook Congress in the election, he'd be able to do it any time he wanted. With a choice like that, I think they should have voted against the IWR.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

120. Most of their constituents did not.

[EFerrari]

3. I think it's a split decision, DA, depending on how

much the Congress Critters were paying attention. To those of us who were watching Caligula, no.

But, there's always the 30ers who might be too unengaged or too stoopid to be less than literal.

I don't worry about them. I worry more about people like DiFi, sitting on the Intelligence Committee, knowing she'd profit from this horror, and who now bats her eyelashes and says, "I had NO idea!" People like her are not only responsible but dangerous.

[muriel_volestrangler]

93. It's their job to pay attention

an imcompetent Congressman is just as bad as an evil one.

[EFerrari]

123. Well, I see degrees but on the whole, I agree. n/t

[blm]

4. If IWR was for war then Bush executed it faithfully and legally. If IWR

had guidelines that Bush bypassed before making his decision then he VIOLATED the IWR and should legally be impeached.

Shouldn't we always look to the law for answers?

[MindPilot]

13. That's a pretty astute analysis blm. Why don't our reps say that?

Unfortunately we can't always trust the law to be applied fairly.

[blm]

82. Left media always focused blame on IWR over Bush's violation of the IWR

and the lawmakers go with the story more widely heard. The lawmakers who did point out many times that Bush rushed to war even as weapons inspectors were proving it unnecessary were not getting heard and the media refused to discuss their points.

Instead of the left demanding apologies for the IWR vote, the left should have spent their energy demanding that lawmakers call for impeachment based on an investigation into Bush's decision to invade even AFTER weapons inspectors gave him the FACTS on the ground in real time.

The debate should also differentiate the pre-war intel bullshit that supposedly drove him to invade, because that was inoperable the moment weapons inspectors went into Iraq and gave two months of reports that proved there was no national security threat to us.

[MindPilot]

14. self-delete -- accidental double post eom

[EFerrari]

15. Yes.

:)

[LSK]

53. IWR is posted in the research forum

My interpretation is that he violated it.

[napi21]

5. When Shrub asked for this authorization, he said

he would only use force if all else failed, and that he needed the authorization in order to prevail in the negotiations. He wanted the opposition to KNOW he was NOY bluffing with the treat of force.

Remember, back then, his poll numbers were quite high, and the public really does think we should be able to BELIEVE the promises our Presidents make.

Ine of the Dem Senators said, just last week, that the thing we were all guilty of was believing what our President said! He said "last resort" and that's why we voted to give him the authority!

[DistressedAmerican]

8. IMO, Such A Failure Of Judgement On Their Part, Makes Them Bad Leaders

at best.

I would not vote for anyone that thought that Bush was not a lying pig from day one. It was clear as day to me and I have never even met the guy.

If (and I empasize IF) they trusted HIM, I do not trust THEM.

[Individualist]

42. One would have had to be deaf and blind

to trust Bloody George. His character was well known, especially inside the beltway, long before he was selected by the Supreme Court.

[Tesha]

7. No. Only a fool would have thought Bush wouldn't go to war...

No. Only a fool would have thought Bush wouldn't go to war if
given the "OK"; deposing Saddam was one of Bush's goals from
long and long before he was "elected".

Tesha

[EFerrari]

10. Agree. And it's sophistry, like saying

"I give you permission to light matches in this grain silo" and then being OH SO SUPRISED when you blow them up.

If Congressional Democrats are that naive, maybe they should resign their seats because they will never be able to navigate their duties in the shark tank.

/typin'

[RethugAssKicker]

19. Anyone whou couldn't see throught Bush BS.

is an asshole... plain and simple.

They voted for the war. If they thought Bush wasn't going to go to war, then they're too stupid to be congress people.

[MindPilot]

22. Congress should have moved in the days after 9/11

They didn't do anything when Bush proved he was incompetent as a leader by staring off into space while the United States was under attack. Their failure to address that issue renders suspect everything they have done since.

[TahitiNut]

23. "voting Bush the authority to go to war" was both more cowardly ...

... and an abdication of a Constitutional responsibility. I personally regard the "War Powers Act" to be an abominably unconstitutional act -- and regard the fact that even its provisions are ignored and unenforced as further evidence of malfeasance on the part of Congress.

The Constitution establishes "the authority to go to war" and only an amendment can change that. Not the WPA and not the IWR - both of which are sheer political cowardice.

[frogmarch]

25. Oh, for chrissake!

The IWR athorized the president to wage war ONLY AS A LAST RESORT, i.e., if the weapons inspectors were sent back in and discovered evidence of WMD. If WMD were found and war was deemed necessary, the president was to seek and obtain wide international support before acting.

The senators who voted yes on the IWR trusted the word of the president of the United States that the US would not ivade Iraq except as a last resort. The senators who voted against the IWR did so because they wanted more discussion first, not because they were against the IWR or knew Bush was lying.

[EFerrari]

26. "trusted the word of the president of the United States"

And that would be a huge failure of judgment, right about there.

[frogmarch]

35. I should have added

that even the senators who voted no were convinced from watching Powell's UNSC presentation that Iraq had WMD. They just wanted more discussion before voting yes on the resolution. The concern was in giving the president such unprecedented power. It had never been done before.

Name the no-voting senators who have said they voted no because they didn't trust that the president would keep his word not to invade Iraq except as a last resort.

Name at least one. And provide a reliable source.

[ProSense]

41. Here are the no voters

But they voted yes for similar authorizations:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Byrd Amdt. No. 4869, As Amended )
Vote Number: 232 Vote Date: October 10, 2002, 09:43 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4869 to S.J.Res. 45 (Further Resolution on Iraq )
Statement of Purpose: To provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, together with procedures for the extension of such date unless Congress disapproves the extension.


Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---31
Akaka (D-HI)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...


U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Durbin Amdt. No. 4865 )
Vote Number: 236 Vote Date: October 10, 2002, 04:48 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4865 to S.Amdt. 4856 to S.J.Res. 45 (Further Resolution on Iraq )
Statement of Purpose: To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 30
NAYs 70


Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---30
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...


You are correct they wanted more discussion.

The Democrats all know Bush started this illegal war.

[DistressedAmerican]

43. Hopefully That Is RELIABLE Enough!

Thanks!

[ProSense]

45. Yes it proves, as Frogmarch says,

that all the Democrats would have voted to give Bush the authorization on further discussion and with other stipulations, none of which would have subverted Bush from wrongdoing. It shows that the IWR was just that an authorization, which Bush violated.

[DistressedAmerican]

47. Um, How So?

[ProSense]

51. Because

These were to add or alter the conditions that needed to be met before granting the authorization, they were not in opposition of the authorization.

[DistressedAmerican]

54. Nanci Pelosi And Many Others In The House Rejected

the move out of hand on the grounds that Bush had not made his case and that he did not have a plan when he went. Feel free to watch her interview on the Daily Show rerun today. She talked about it at length last night.

Many were opposed to more than the non-inclusion of these ammendments.

You also make the assumption that with added ammendments they all would have voted for it. That is little more than an assertion.

[ProSense]

62. I don't assume anything

The fact is these would have been endorsements.

[EFerrari]

61. Doesn't that damn them, too, rather than exonerate the

Sheep contingent in the Senate?

[ProSense]

66. I'm glad you said that

Damn them? No. Because it was an authorization. Bush is the only one damned for starting this illegal war.

It's incorrect to characterize the IWR as a vote for war.

[EFerrari]

68. But, I didn't do that.

And, having abdicated their warmaking powers, giving this criminal authorization to use force was, as we have seen, a terrible lapse of judgment AND a disservice to the constituency to argued loudly and publicly against such authorization.

[ProSense]

72. They did not abdicate their powers

(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://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107Y2m8RF::


Bush violated the resolution.

[DistressedAmerican]

75. Why Was It A Blank Check!

Couldn't the same pressure have been applied by a resolution that required ANOTHER vote before going in?

[ProSense]

81. What blank check?

The resolution was consistent with by the War Powers Resolution, which is not a blank check.

[DistressedAmerican]

86. The One That Did Not REQUIRE Another Vote Before Going In.

That's what blank check. Remember this was extensively discussed at the time, another vote requirment?

Sure, I think it was legal for them to pass it. I never argued it wasn't. I argue that they SHOULDN'T have.

If they wanted to give Bush ssome teeth for his UN push, that could have been done with a resolution that stopped short of authorizing Bush to take any further action he deemed necessesary. Why not a requirement for another vote before going in?

[EFerrari]

122. Parsing again.

Has Congress declared war? No.

Yet, I'm sure those dead and wounded soldiers were told they were fighting one.

And it has already been pointed out to you that Congressional negligence doesn't preclude the pResidents.

sheesh.

[ProSense]

129. No!

Congress did their duty. They voted on a resolution based on the evidence Bush presented. Bush violated the resolution, not Congress.

[EFerrari]

57. Oh, really?

Tell me. Did Feinstein's husband SUBMIT THE BID TO BUILD CENTCOM before or after the vote?

For me, this isn't some nebulous point of honor or some jackass parsing of the law.

For me, this is about people like Dino Diane being FLOODED with information by her constituents before the war and being IGNORED, CONDESCENDED TO AND LIED TO by HER.

And, do you think for a minute, if she isn't held responsible this time, she wouldn't do it again in a heartbeat?

She's up for re-election, btw.

So, sure. Let's press the issue when fighting the Cabal. But I don't care if Dianne is Thug, Dem or fish. She has apologies to extend to those of us who BEGGED HER not to go along with this and even did the research FOR her.

Guess she was more interested in spreading freedom in Iraq. :sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

44. The no-voters would never say such a thing. That's just silly.

That they don't voice it, however, doesn't speak to the enormous lapse of judgment (or hedge, you decide) that the yes-voters had in trusting THIS president and THIS administration.

And that's what we pay them to do, isn't it? Represent our best interests using sound judgment?

Please. How could ANYONE in public office "trust" these criminals after FLORIDA?

I'll give the yes-voters the cover they need to make political capital at this crucial moment. But, I'll see it for what it is, politics not strictly the truth.

[DistressedAmerican]

46. One Correction:

...politics not REMOTELY the truth!

[EFerrari]

49. Lol!

[DistressedAmerican]

28. Ok, Captian "Oh, for chrissake!", Talk To Me About The House Vote.

Talk to me about the Nanci Pelosi's of the world. Since you know what was in all of their heads that is.

[Tesha]

58. When has Bush *NOT* landed at "the last resort" or beyond?

> The IWR athorized the president to wage war ONLY AS A LAST RESORT

When has Bush *NOT* landed at "the last resort" or beyond?

Everything Bush touches, from baseball teams to oil companies to
Iraq, turns to shit; why shouldn't the Congress have expected that
if Bush's plan had "war" as a last resort, he'd rapidly end up at
that point (*EVEN IF* they assumed that he didn't want to get to
that point, which he had previously announced that he did!)

Tesha

[Dora]

31. I voted "no difference," and here's why....

The vote was about entrusting a collective responsibility into the hands of one man. Many in Congress who voted "yes" have stammered and sputtered about "the trust" they had that the president would not abuse that responsibility.

Why in heaven's name would they trust George W. Bush?

Why would they do such a thing? Why would they do that when...

1) That man masquerading as a president had been in office for less than a year when they bent over for him.
2) He had NO practical governing experience to speak of
3) His work history was littered with the hulks of failures, swindles, and profitable deceptions.
4) His scant military history was a contrivance.
5) He had been put into office by a Supreme Court decision, not by a vote of the people.

They have no reasons and no excuses. It is time for them all to say they did it, it was a mistake, and that they will make amends for the error of their ways.

For as long as they fail to do so, they are all miserable failures.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. None. A criminal and his accomplices in a crime against humanity.

The "Duh, I was misled" defense holds as much water as the "I was just following orders" defense did at Nuremberg.

[wellst0nev0ter]

36. The Majority of The Democrats In The House Voted Against It

60 percent I believe, so it's not impossible for people to see through it back then, especially since the evidence was so murky that Bush resorted to weapons inspectors at first.

[EFerrari]

59. That's right! Nancy pointed that out last night on TSD. n/t

[MadHound]

38. No, in this instance I think that the distinction is meaningless

Despite the wording of the IWR, everybody including those who voted for it, knew that Bush would use the IWR sooner rather than later in Iraq. That is why millions upon millions of people were out in the street, writing, phoning and mailing their Congressional reps, all screaming NO to the IWR. If we, without the resources and information afforded to Congress, could figure out what the IWR was all about, surely our so called leaders did to. And they voted to let loose the dogs of war anyway.

Another beef that I have with our so called leaders on this issue is that they failed to perform their primary job duty, which is to be the collective voice of their constituents. Millions and millions were out on the street saying NO to the IWR. Millions and millions more were getting in contact with their rep saying NO. Messages to all Congressional reps were running 268-1 against the IWR. Yet our so called leaders simply ignored this and voted for it the IWR. Sorry, but if I fuck up my primary job duty that badly, I get fired. We shouldn't be giving them a pass on it, they should be held accountable.

Frankly all of this drawing of essentially meaningless distinctions is simply a way that our leaders are trying to shift the blame and pretend ignorance on the matter. It doesn't fly, and quite frankly anybody who voted for the IWR has the blood of innocents on their hands.

[LSK]

52. I voted yes because I read the IWR

Its posted in the research forum. Bush clearly violated it. If you want to be mad at Congress, be mad at them for doing nothing about him violating it.

[DistressedAmerican]

56. This Is Not An Either Or Situation.

They should not have authorized in the first damn place. He was a liar with a well known anti-Saddam agenda. Make all the excuses you would like. But, when so many Americans were loudly opposing this resolution because they saw the writing on the wall, them saying we "Trusted" Bush looks just plain silly to me.

They have further exacerbated their poor judgement by not going after him on the violations. They should ALSO be held accountable for that. These thingas are not mutually exclusive.

I again say, anyone in Congress that did not see the writing on the wall (as did many of their constituents) with this resolution do not deserve the job.

I wrote repeatedly to Chuck and Hillary making these points. They couldn't have cared less what they people that put them there were telling them. Neither will ever get another vote from me.

[LSK]

60. were they opposing the resolution or Bush violating the resolution?

The resolution was a good tool used to get inspectors in Iraq and was forcing Saddam to fully cooperate with the inspectors. And the inspectors were getting a lot done and debunking all the Bush myths. The problem lies in that Bush was ignoring the inspectors and went to war for no reason.

The blame should be rested on Bush for violating the resolution. Getting into all this "blame people who voted for it" is just more circular firing squad nonsense that only helps deflect blame away from Bush.

I will admit it is a complicated issue. But the fact remains that inspectors were on the ground finding nothing and Bush ignored them and ran to war.

[EFerrari]

64. Ah, weren't the inspectors ALREADY in Iraq? Anyone know?

And no, you couldn't be more wrong about the circular firing square this time, anyway.

The Senate leadership bent over for Bush. They shouldn't have done that. They were derelict. And they will be again unless they are called to account in some way.

Nonsense? Maybe your expectations of your representatives don't involve being represented?

:wtf:

[LSK]

65. Inspectors were not in Iraq until late 2002

[EFerrari]

67. Okay. All these Bushyears have fried my timelines. n/t

[LSK]

69. more details

On September 12, amid increasing speculation that the United States is preparing to invade Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, President Bush delivers a speech to the United Nations calling on the organization to enforce its resolutions for disarming Iraq. Bush strongly implies that if the United Nations does not act, the United States will—a message that US officials make more explicit the following week.

Four days later, Baghdad announces that it will allow arms inspectors to return “without conditions.” Iraqi and UN officials meet September 17 to discuss the logistical arrangements for the return of inspectors and announce that final arrangements will be made at a meeting scheduled for the end of the month. The United States contends that there is nothing to talk about and warns that the Iraqis are simply stalling. The Bush administration continues to press the Security Council to approve a new UN resolution calling for Iraq to give weapons inspectors unfettered access and authorizing the use of force if Iraq does not comply.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02.asp - under the heading "2002" in the middle.

[EFerrari]

71. Yes, Bush was really pushing for those unfetter inspections.

That's why Hans Blix's apartment was bugged by the Feds!

lol

[DistressedAmerican]

74. The Congress Also Knew The Inspectors On The Ground Were Finding Nothing.

Don't you think they had an obligation to demand answers as to why despite the administration's efforts to find the "smoking gun" by feeding the inspectors their best intel was yielding nothing before authorizing war? Didn't they have an obligation to determine that they was or was not a threat before writing ush a blank check?

Couldn't the same pressure have been applied by a resolution that required ANOTHER vote before going in?

Really.

[LSK]

76. your timeframe is off

Check my other posts. IWR vote was in early October 2002, inspectors were NOT in Iraq by then.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq-timeline.htm

[Yollam]

89. According to your own source, Iraq had already agreed to allow inspections

According to your own source, Iraq had already agreed to allow unconditional inspections as early as Sept 2002.

[DistressedAmerican]

95. That Is What I Both Remembered And Find Here As Well.

16 September 2002
Iraq said it would allow international weapons inspectors to return "without conditions." Inspectors will be governed by the timetable established in UN Security Council resolution 1284, which reorganized the inspections program in 1999. The UNMOVIC and the IAEA inspectors, not later than 60 days after they have both started work in Iraq, would report to the Security Council to lay out a work plan. After the work plan is adopted, UNMOVIC and IAEA have 120 days within which to make an initial report on whether Iraq is cooperating.

[LSK]

98. and yet there was nobody actually in Iraq at the time of the vote

With the Bush administration producing doctored false intellingence and given Saddams past of interfering with inspections, I do not see the IWR being unreasonable.

[DistressedAmerican]

99. How About A Resolution That Required Another Vote Before Military Action?

The same results could have been achieved (pressuring Saddam) while not allowing Bush to do what ever the hell he wanted from that point on.

If the purpose was to force the inspections issue a resolution with a re-vote provision would have accomplished the same thing AND it would have opened up the situation to new debate on what the inspectors found. Rather than just saying from this day forward Bush can do what he thinks best. Which in effect is how the IWR worked.

[LSK]

101. fair enough

That would have been the smart thing to do. Then in March 2003, the Congress could have said "no, the inspectors arnt finding anything, therefore, no war."

But I dont see that passing in a Republican Congress.

[Marr]

63. Only a rhetorical distinction. It's an out for chickenshit politicians.

People who were either too scared to do their duty or part of the profiteering themselves.

And besides- there is NO argument for Congress to sign away their power to the Executive Branch. No excuse at all.

[G_j]

70. what I want to know is: where were these people

where were these people who were so fooled and who didn't really want war etc. in the days leading up to the invasion??? Raising holy hell? Listening to the millions of people beggiing them to do something to stop it? >crickets<

It was SO obvious Bush was HORNY FOR WAR. Remember Afghanistan?

[Yollam]

73. Making excuses for dems who voted yes...

...is being nothing but a partisan apologist.

We ALL knew the case for WMD was a fraud, that Bush was not acting in good faith back then. The intel made it clear that there were likely to be no stockpiles of WMD. That info was available to the congress just as much as you and I. And that wasn't the only lie. Remember how Bush kept saying that he hadn't decided to go to war, even as 100,000 troops were en route to Iraq? How he kept insisting that Saddam "comply" and "disarm" (even though he had nothing left to disarm), and even when Saddam allowed inspectors back in, and presented the UN with thousands of pages detailing all of Iraq's weapons programs, Bushco just dismissed it offhand? Remember how Bush kept saying that he had "exhausted all diplomatic avenues" even though the only diplomacy was between the US and UN members to try to get them into the war - THERE WAS NEVER ANY DIPLOMACY BETWEEN THE US AND IRAQ - THEY WERE SHUT OUT.

Every democrat and republican in congress who voted yes on the Iraq War Resolution was and is complicit in MASS MURDER, and in a perfect world, every single one of them would be rotting in a prison cell along with the entire Bush administration.

But unfortunately, we find ourselves living in a very imperfect world, where I will likely be forced to vote for a mass murderer or murderess for president, for the relative good of the nation. :( :mad:

Some partisan democrats around here may not like me saying that. Well, sorry. I'm not a partisan democrat. I'm a human being first and foremost, and politicians voting on war OWE our soldiers due diligence in researching the case for war FULLY, and they should ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION when the rationale is not fully there.

[TheFarseer]

77. This resolution was tought to vote against

so I really respect the few people who did vote against it. If the resolution would have been voted down, we would have had very little leverage to make Saddam keep the inspectors in Iraq.

[Yollam]

80. Saddam had let the inspectors back in...

...and was complying with UN resolutions. He also presented all the documentation demanded of him. As a matter of fact, Iraq complied with every single US demand before the war, and we still blew them into oblivion.

We did not need a de facto declaration of war to keep inspectors there - the UN resolution did that. And you should remember that Saddam never kicked them out. He asked US inspectors, not UN inspectors, to leave in 1998 because he believed that they were spying (a claim that Scott Ritter has confirmed as true).

[TheFarseer]

84. I can't remember if

he only let the inspectors back in after the vote or if they were already inspecting or what the time-line was on this. Did the UN inspectors leave also in '98? Someone on DU a couple months ago said they did, because they were satisfied he didn't have anymore illegal weapons but didn't have a link. It would be foolish of me to argue with you because I basically agree with everything you said.

[LSK]

85. inspectors were not in Iraq at the time of IWR vote

See post 76

[Yollam]

90. But Iraq had already agreed to inspectors coming in in September.

Without conditions, according to the same source.

There was zero threat against the US upon which to base that vote, presence or absence of inspectors notwithstanding.

[DistressedAmerican]

87. THANK YOU!

[blm]

88. Inspectors let back in only AFTER the IWR. Does Hans Blix ring a bell?

.

[Yollam]

92. Iraq had already AGREED to allow them in in Septemmber.

And Hans Blix rings lots of bells - mostly his repeated declarations that there were no WMD stockpiles in Iraq...

[DistressedAmerican]

96. Not True. See The Timeline Posted In Reply 76

Iraq agreed to allow inspectors back in on Sept 16. The IWR vote did not take place til the next month.

[blm]

100. Because he knew it would be in the resolution - it's not like he did it on

his own without pressure, Saddam is as honorable as George Bush - and the resolution that the Dems wanted was for pressure.

That's how wars are avoided - by guidelines in the resolutions that are meant for pressure.

Blame Bush for not executing those guidelines honestly. Don't pretend its the guidelines themselves that are at fault - Bush is let off the hook then.

[DistressedAmerican]

103. Again I'll Ask Why The Blank Check?

A resolution requiring another vote before invasion would have done the same thing, pressure Saddam. We did not have to pass a bill that essentially gave Bush authority to invade at that point.

Why didn't they insist on that provision? It was widely discussed at the time. That is why this resolution has been referred to as a blank check from that day forward.

[blm]

105. That means Bush FAITHFULLY executed the IWR according to you.

Because, like it or not, that's the bottom line.

Either the IWR is to blame for war because its guidelines demanded it, or Bush is to blame when he violated the IWR and its guidelines.

[DistressedAmerican]

106. That Is Not The Bottom Line.

The bottom line is that they should have never trusted him in the first place (although lots just wanted political cover, to not look weak). The IWR war not written in such a way that is was difficult to abuse. ANY bill they passed without that provision was ripe for abuse. He never should have had the chance.

Why do you refuse to discuss the alternate proposal of a required second vote? This reply seems like a dodge to me.

[blm]

107. Because the issue is whether the IWR was a vote for war or was the IWR a

resolution that could have prevented war if administered faithfully.

You conclude that it was a blank check for Bush to go to war. Fortunately for Bush the media accepted that spin, too.

I conclude that that IWR had guidelines that Bush violated. Unfortunately, since the media sided with you and Bush's omnipotence, there wasn't much discussion about Bush violating those guidelines.

[DistressedAmerican]

109. A Resolution With A Provision For Another Vote Would Not Have

been a vote for war, it would have been a diplomatic tool.

Still dodging the issue, which you think you can redefine.

Any resolution that authorized Bush to go to war was a resolution for war. If they did not want him to have the authority to go to war, they had every opportunity to address that when the legislation was written.

Some tried to include the provision which would have made it the tool that you claim the approved version was. Since they did not reject a proposal without that provision, they wrote the blank check (not a tool of diplomacy).

What they voted on was a war resolution. Plain and simple.

However, we are not going to agree. How about we agree to disagree?

[blm]

112. Looks to me like YOU BLAME IWR and I BLAME BUSH FOR VIOLATING IWR

and that's all.

What was in the IWR doesn't matter to you and what wasn't in the IWR does matter to you.

Truth is that Bush was going in with or without the IWR and only wanted an IWR to divide the Dem party before an election. He had all the legal means he needed from the original 19991 UN resolution.

But the IWR - itself - would have prevented war if executed by any other president.

[DistressedAmerican]

116. If So, It Would Have Been The First "War Resolution" To Do So.

[ProSense]

128. Bush wanted to start a war and had public support

He could have done it anyway (it would have been illegal, but he was intent on going to war). The War Powers Resolution, which supercedes this resolution accords him that with one condition (Read the WPR):

According to the War Powers Resolution

Bush could have 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. He would still be in violation had he acted without Congress, but he didn't need Congressional approval. The resolution was in line with the WPR, but it was not a declaration to go to war. It was an authorization to 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. He only has to report back.


Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution

Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

snip...

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


An article from John Dean:

Snip...
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/

[sendero]

79. I really do think there is a big distinction...

... and had the president been honorable and gone to war as a last resort, as he claimed he was going to do, the vote FOR the IWR would have been proper - as a 'sabre rattling' measure.

However, IMHO any person with the slightest ability to decipher Bush as a leader should have known full well that he had no intention whatsoever of making war a last resort - he was already committed to the invasion well before the vote.

[DistressedAmerican]

97. We NEVER Needed A Blank Check Resolution.

The Sabre could have been just as easily rattled with one that called for ANOTHER VOTE before invading. It was discussed extensively at the time.

That is proof to me that nay who eventually voted for the resolution KNEW he would invade. Otherwise, why require another vote before he did?

[sendero]

117. Well...

.... I can't really argue with that :)

I spend a lot of time here railing against certain #$%@ who voted for the damn thing, sometimes I just feel like giving them the benefit of a doubt. :)

In essence - I probably pretty much agree - but I think the real reason so many Dems voted for the IWR is that given the political realities of the time they didn't have the guts to vote against it.

[DistressedAmerican]

118. BINGO!

Nailed it!

No Guts to oppose for fear of looking soft on defense. Costing them now. Being strong on defense means more than a willingness to blow up anyone we do not like. It does not mean willingness to overextend our troops and make their families suffer.

I wish that they would figure that out.

[freestyle]

83. No distinction. IWR leaves war solely to bush's determination.

There is no distinction, especially knowing bush's intent to invade, and also knowing how dishonest he and the whole administration are. Most House Democrats voted no. The only part of the debate I really remember is Pete Stark of California saying that bush and the bush administration could not be trusted. There was absolutely no reason to trust bush, and those claim they did come off sounding stupid.

[GreenArrow]

121. "IWR leaves war solely to bush's determination"

Not a point commonly heard around here, probably because it is so accurate.

[EstimatedProphet]

102. This is the crux of the biscuit

This is why it is that things happened the way they did.

For us, looking at the run-up to war given by the administration, I think there was no real distinction. We knew Bush had every intention to attack at any cost. The way he was arguing clearly said so-when one argument was disproven he would simply come up with another one, without changing what he was arguing for. It's a a childish tactic, really. As I've said here before, the run-up to the invasion arguments reminded me of a 4 year old trying to get a cookie.

However, I'm not in Congress. I don't have thousands of issues to keep track of every day. I don't have bills that are 5,000 pages dropped on my desk 2 hours before a vote on them comes up. And most importantly, I'm outside the mindset of Capitol Hill-I don't have the assumption which becomes ingrained after a long time there that the President and Congress will have to be responsible because it will come out if they aren't. I think the compliant press has taken a lot of people in Congress by surprise. I think that they had an unconscious belief that Bush would never try to lie with this magnitude, because he would so obviously be caught. And not realizing that he could get away with it in the press because he owned the press, they had a blind spot they couldn't see around, while at the time we could.

[DistressedAmerican]

104. I Guess It Is Time For Some DUers To Run. We Apparently Can See

what is invisible to them even when it is smacking them in the face.

My bottom line is, If I knew he was full of shit, they should have too. If they are too distracted by the work to deal with this (the biggest issue to hit them in decades), maybe we need to elect some people that can handle the workload and STILL make prudent choices.

I am far less certain that there is ANY culture "that the President and Congress will have to be responsible because it will come out if they aren't" left in the congress if there ever was one.

I think most of them have decided we are stupid. Maybe they are right...

[Swamp Rat]

108. "If I knew he was full of shit, they should have too."

That sums up this whole topic for me. If I recall, Scott Ritter was TELLING THEM TO THEIR COLLECTIVE FACE that the WMD claims were not accurate. Jeebus criest on burnt toast! How come people, including DUers, still believe "they didn't know?"

Btw, I'm selling two Mississippi River bridges in case anyone is interested. They are on sale for X-Mas and I've gotta move the stock in order to start my sky scraper sale. :eyes:

[DistressedAmerican]

110. They Believe It Because It Is The Party Line Spin. They Want To.

Same reason that favaorable poll results get lauded here while unfavorable ones get dismissed as meaningless. I am so sick of the party fucking line. How about some truth for a fucking change. Man, Aam I sick of spin from both sides!

Bottom line on this thinking is that dems do not want to face their votes and they are trying any line that will stick to avoid facing those votes.

Many DUers are sadly tools of the party as much as are those running for office. They trust Dems to tell the truth because they are dems. I think that is wildly shortsighted. In reality, they are not just dems, they are politicians and that makes them almost by definition full of shit.

[GreenArrow]

119. "I think most of them have decided we are stupid"

yes, they decided that a long time ago. And when some of these same folks (usually the ones with aspirations to further political office) come out and declare, without humility, that they were "mislead", they are insulting our intelligence once again.

[AntiCoup2K4]

113. With a more reputable president, there might have been benefit of doubt.

But god damn it, we're talking George fucking Bush Jr here. Any senator who didn't know he was a lying piece of shit from a family of lying pieces of shit who surrounded himself with professional liars and pieces of shit, really either doesn't have the intelligence to serve the people of their state. Either that or they are liars themselves. Especially those such as Hillary and Kerry who have enough experience dealing with these fucking bastards to know better.

Trusting the pResident is not a valid defense in this case. Not at all.

[DistressedAmerican]

115. Not Only Is It Not A Defense, It Is A Crime In Itself!

Not literally, of course. But, a crime none the less.

[Usrename]

124. The two are definitely not the same thing-

But they have the same result. Senators, I expect, should understand this or get the hell out of the Senate!

For Representatives, I think, phraseology is more important. The House operates much differently and is by nature more political. Framing (and other things like who introduced the Bill) are given more consideration. It's just different, IMHO.

I answered NO to the poll, of course.

[yurbud]

125. Democrats supported same goals but expected subtler methods

[DistressedAmerican]

126. Dumb Asses...