Speaking of bush's Iraq War Resolution...could some freeping idiot show

[LynnTheDem]

just WHERE in that document bush says we must PRE-EMPTIVELY rush our troops to INVASION of Iraq, short on rifles and ammo and body armor and other such little niceties, to SPREAD DEMOCRACY?

Coz I can't find it. And I'd really love to know what fuck-heads were stupid enough to have voted yes to such a total pile of bullshit as that.

Thanks.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. Magnetic bearings and some democracts are alike in one respect,

neither one needs any balls to function properly.

[LynnTheDem]

2. But did ANYONE vote for "Invasion of Iraq to spread democracy"?

Coz the IWR I have doesn't say shit about any spreading of democracy.

But as it's now such an accepted "justification" for invading a sovereign nation that hadn't been doing anything to anyone, least of all us, I figured I must be looking at the wrong iraq War Resolution. ;)

[punpirate]

3. I believe there was a previous resolution...

... expressing the general desire to remove Hussein and institute democracy in Iraq, written in 1998. It was written in way that was clearly political and intended to create a context where the right could charge any who didn't go along with it as being Hussein lovers. That act, 105-338, is referenced in the current resolution, and expresses the desire to remove the then-current regime and institute democratic government to replace Hussein's regime. It's the seventeenth "Whereas" from the top.

Cheers.

[LynnTheDem]

4. You mean CLINTON'S "Iraq Liberation Act".

Which had and has no standing in law coz under US law and the United States Constitution, "regime change" is in fact ILLEGAL.

And read the ACTUAL authority to wage war; NOWHERE does it say bush has authority to wage war to SPREAD DEMOCRACY.

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.

Huh. So where's the "(3) to spread democracy" ?

Nope. It was all based on a non-existant THREAT from Iraq. Good. The Hague should deal with that.

[LynnTheDem]

5. Clinton's ILA that also specifically says...

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces in carrying out this Act."

So if bush tried to use Clinton's ILA, we could get bush for violating the same Act he'd be using as his justification. That'd be fun. :D

[punpirate]

6. I'm not arguing that...

... the justifications in the war resolution are not a tissue of lies (they are). You said there's no mention in the document of instituting democracy in Iraq, but, in fact, there is. One of those justifications cited is an existing public law to that effect.

The Whereases, legally, are the supporting justifications. So, they exist in the final public law, and become law, even if that law violates previously existing treaty obligations under Article 6 of the Constitution, one of which is international law banning war for the sake of regime change. You're quite correct in that regard.

Also, look at Sec. 4, the reporting requirements to Congress, which implicitly allows the Bush administration to proceed with provisions of Public Law 105-338:

"SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

"(a) REPORTS.—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 3 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 the Iraq Liberation
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338)."

Therefore, the war resolution enables some aspects of the prior public law, after the invasion, even if it wasn't a defined reason.

But, the administration has pretty much gone down the list of justifications as reasons for the war, and as each have been shown to be false, they've adopted another one to pitch to the public.

Don't get me wrong--I think the whole thing was a put-up job and everyone in the administration associated with the decision ought to go to prison. Everyone in Congress who voted for such an open-ended resolution on, at best, very flimsy evidence, ought to have "I'm a stupid warmongering sucker" tattooed on their foreheads in big letters.

The justifications, however false, are in the resolution. The administration continues to use those justifications for all they are worth, because virtually all of the justifications, in and of themselves, are lies concocted by the administration.

Cheers.

[LynnTheDem]

11. I know (and agree) with you here but the only AUTHORITY given for WAR

in bush's IWR, is threat from Iraq. Nothing else.

Thing I was really trying to say, sarcastic-like, was WHO the HELL would have said YES if bush had said hey we gotta go invade Iraq and loose a couple thousand American men, women & teens doing it, so we can SPREAD DEMOCRACY!

Even the rethugs would have had him impeached & locked away. ;)

[HysteryDiagnosis]

17. No one. and in response to an earlier post, "regime change" is in fact IL

>>"regime change" is in fact ILLEGAL.<<

Nothing shrubbie and his cohorts do is illegal, whether it is or not. They write the rules as they go. Perhaps some true democracies will decide we need a regime change at home. Now wouldn't that be interesting.

From the looks of things from the Air Force 2025 deal, we certainly don't appear to be thinking about being at peace with ANYONE in the next 100 years or so.

[wiggs]

7. Also, the IWR came with conditions.

The WH was supposed to make findings and submit them to congress regarding proof of Iraq/AQ connections and imminent threat.

Read John Dean's book, Worse than Watergate. He explains how these findings that were submitted to congress were laughably lame. And congress accepted them.

[blm]

8. The IWR would have PREVENTED war if it had been adhered to properly.

The Bush administration did not faithfully execute the IWR. The blame is squarely on their shoulders.

Do not let them off the hook.

[txaslftist]

9. Voting for the IWR was not a vote for the Iraq war.

That's the truth, if you actually read the IWR.

Another Gdamnd Bush lie!

[CTLawGuy]

13. It was literally an

"Authorization of Force", and it did just that.

There's a reason why millions of people called and faxed into Congress in the days leading up to the vote to urge people to vote against it.

[txaslftist]

16. Whoaaa, pardner...

I'm not saying it was a good vote!

It was a crappy vote and an abdication of congressional responsibility to declare war. I'm saying that the blame should fall squarely on the man who abused the authorization and ignored the preconditions it included.

[CTLawGuy]

19. I agree he deserves blame

I worked to try to remove Bush from office, and the Iraq War was a big reason (among other big reasons).

See my post 18

[CTLawGuy]

12. if thats true

then why did bush want that particular resolution so badly?

Especially after he rejected the Biden-Lugar resolution because it "tied his hands".

[blm]

14. So you fell for Bush's headfake? Go ahead, let Bush off the hook. That's

your right.

You are also welcome to prove that he adhered faithfully to the IWR.

[CTLawGuy]

18. you are the one claiming he violated it

you prove he didnt follow IWR.


It WAS the resolution he wanted. I'm sure that so he could ignore it :eyes:


I don't let bush off the hook, I just hold those who enabled the war to happen just as responsible,

just as the guy who drives the getaway car is just as guilty as the guys who robbed the bank.

[htuttle]

10. We have an outlaw regime

The invasion of Iraq was illegal under the UN charter and our own Constitution. However our political system is corrupted to the point where there is no party who has both the motivation and the power to take the administration to task and enforce the law.

This is precisely the sort of situation that the International Criminal Court was devised to handle -- one where a country's legal system has failed to enforce it's own laws.

[Zhade]

15. I just want DUers to remember one thing...

If they forgive Democrats their yes vote on the IWR, they must also absolve Republicans of that same vote, or else they are hypocrites.

Can't have it both ways, ya know?