Tristan Scott

So I've noticed.

:notworthy

MortalWombat

OK. Nevermind. When Tristan answered "1441" to the question "What security council resolution authorized Bush's war?" I assumed that he was giving his own opinion, not Bush's.

Optional

Mmmm.... I claim semantics rights. The correct answer to the question "What security council resolution authorized Bush's war?" is still NOT "1441", because while that may indeed have been what was on Congress' collective tiny little pea-brain mind when they wrote HJ 114, 1441 in fact does NOT authorize force and therefore 1441 can't be used as an excuse to authorize force for the president.

In other words, a more correct answer would have been, "Congress thought that 1441 did, but they were wrong".

There, now that we've established that I was RIGHT all along, we can just move along with the thread, shall we? *Optional tries to look confident and authoritative, hoping he'll get away with it*

-me

peacenik

Yes, it is true that the Democrats talked about WMDs and the threat that Saddam Hussein POTENTIALLY posed. However, the difference was that they didn't use this shaky intelligence suggesting that Iraq posed a threat to justify an unprecedented all out "pre-emptive" war(i.e. an unprovoked, offensive, and unjustified war). Using deceptive propoganda to propose the maintenance of sanctions against Iraq is one thing, but using deceptive propoganda to attack a defenseless nation resulting in the death of several hundred U.S. soldiers, several thousand Iraqi Civilians, utter chaos throughout the country, and the looting of ancient treasures is a completely different thing.

Sauron

No, it isn't. The US and its allies spent 40 years preparing for just such a "full-blown war" with the USSR. The US has strategic alliances with 30+ countries, because it believes that full-out war is very much applicable, even in "modern times". The military conducts war games on a recurring basis, precisely because they also do not believe that full-out war is impossible.

The bottom line here is that Congress did not authorize war - they authorized a very narrow military action of precise scope and very finite timeframe. That is not a declaration of war. The War Powers Act was a reaction to the Vietnam excesses of the Johnson and Nixon administrations - Congress acted to prevent open-ended military actions that had poorly defined goals and lacked popular support.

And, of course, your petty objection skirts the issue that Dubya & Co. still exceeded the scope of the very same UN mandate they pointed to, as a basis for this joint resolution.


That's just a rationalization for the fact that you were wrong about this. Accept it, and move on.

Sue Sponte

The majority of this discussion, in my view, completely misses the point.

First, to the extent any Democrat TRUSTED the president when he lied about WMD, how is that somehow the equivalent of the lie? If someone leads you, through falsehoods, to a false conclusion, it is your fault? I don't follow the logic. Bush controlled, and refused to subject to peer review, the intelligence information, asking legislators to take him at his word. Now, suggesting that those who did are equally at blame is nonsense.

Second, when it boils down to it, IF some democrats were complicit with the use of false information to justify war, then they all should be removed from office and criminally prosecuted. I fail to see how pointing out that someone else also did something wrong would somehow vindicate another who also committed the act.

If any government official, from the president to congressman and intelligence officers, falsefied or misrepresented "classified" information in order to obtain justification for war they should all go to jail.

I'll also add that I agree with those who observe that the current situation is an apt illustration of the two-party system gone awry. Few seem to care about what was done or why, only who to blame it on. It's shameful that we, as a nation, have empowered our politicians to act based on bullshit, rather than addressing the merits of an issue.

I'm frankly embarrassed at the state of politics in our country. The complete lack of any meaningful media or voter scrutiny of what these idiots get away with is the reason these things take place. In other words, no politician would even attempt this crap (or the Patriot Act, or recent Tax cut as a benefit for all people, etc.) if they weren't convinced that the electorate is a collection of morons. Unfortunately, they appear to be correct.

ZiprHead

I've got to say this was more a matter of semantics. Tristan just plain didn't answer the question that he resonded to. Here's what he thought he was responding to:

That's not the question asked. It's not the fault of us "idiot pals" that Tristan misunderstood the question.

Tristan Scott

Sorry you can't let this go, but since you cannot, here was your original post where you asked "the question":

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kinross
H.J.RES.114

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and "the question":

What security council resolution authorized Bush's war?

As I have already pointed out, you preceded the question by citing an excerpt from HJ114. It is reasonable then to assume you were referring to the Security Counsil resolution that was cited in the paragraph you cited, yes?

Anyone who has taken 9th grade civics would probably know that the UN Security Council doesn't have the authority to send American troops into combat. Only the Congress has that authority according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and by Public Law 93-148 (The War Powers Resolution.). HJ 114 was the authorization, and that is the point, the President of the US does not need to get approval or authorization from the UN, and even if he does, he still has to get authorization from congress either by a declaration of war or by utilizing the War Powers Resolution.

I concede that I didn't answer the question you asked. I concede that I was giving you credit for not being ignorant to the fact that the UN cannot authorize an American war.

For that I truly and humbly apologize.

ZiprHead

The question wasn't whether the UN was going to send our troops into combat, the question was whether the UN authorized the United States use of force as we have gotten authorization in the past. HJ114 didn't order the troops into battle. HJ114 clearly passed the buck onto the UN to give Bush authorization.

Tristan Scott

Clearly? Where does it say that?

None of the UN resolutions talk about invading Iraq. All they are referring to is weapons inspections. HJ 114 is saying that it authorizes the president to use American armed forces to enforce the UN resolutions. Thats the whole reason that the failure to find said weapons is such an issue.