Would * have dared invade Iraq without the IWR?

[Padraig18]

Poll question: Would * have dared invade Iraq without the IWR?

Do you think he would have been brazen enough to invade Iraq without the IWR, or did the IWR provide Bush with the veneer of legality he needed to proceed? Please explain your answer or comment. Thanks.

:hi:

[goobergunch]

1. Yes

Bush would have gone in, with or without authorization.

[Padraig18]

2. Ok. Then why...

... didn't the Senate Democrats fillibuster the resolution to death, and dare him to do so?

[goobergunch]

4. Election politics, probably

They didn't want to look "soft on defense". Fat lot of good that did them....

Additionally, some of them (like Lieberman) supported the war to begin with.

[moosedog]

16. because

They are cickenshit

[Josh]

37. The resolution passed 77-23 - you only need 60 votes to kill a filibuster

so it would have been moot anyway.

[arewethereyet]

3. no way

it ensured that the cash to pay for it would be there.

can't wage war with out a little do-re-mi

[Padraig18]

5. I agree.

*That* is where the 'enabling' enetered the picture.

[Melinda]

6. Oh absolutely. Plans were gathering dust & PNAC needed feeding.

The plan, the plan, all according to the plan.

They still control the machine, but fast losing that authority - and it's their turn to be scared. They should be.

[Cooley Hurd]

7. Don't forget, they were ready to go in...

...without IWR being voted on, and said they could do so because the 1990 authorization (to go to war) was still in effect. They were going to be challenged legally on this, but I remember very clearly they were going to use the 1990 authorization as legal cover.

I still think the reason so many Dems voted for IWR 2002 was because they knew Bush would go to war with or without it, and didn't want to expose themselves politically by opposing it, especially if the US did find WMD's...

[Padraig18]

9. But he had no money without the IWR.

That was the 'why' of it.

[goobergunch]

12. IWR didn't appropriate funds

That's accomplished by the appropriations bills, which were approved by a nearly unanimous margin.

Incidentally, that's what we should filibuster.

[Padraig18]

14. Technically true.

But once it gave him the authority to USE force, it sorta backed Congress into a self-constructed corner...

[nuxvomica]

22. I don't think it was just politics

They (a) were being told in intelligence briefings that there was a threat from Iraq and (b) they wanted to put up a united front and use the IWR as leverage against Hussein. And (c) they thought being part of the process would give them some measure of control on the process.

[sandnsea]

45. Including Howard Dean

He didn't have to vote, but he sure made the same Saddam is dangerous arguments up and until Kerry came out questioning Bush's rush to war in January.

[Cocoa]

8. his lawyer was making the case in the summer

Alberto Gonzalez, saying Bush had the authority without Congress.

To me it's inconceivable that Bush would not have gone in. What's he going to run his reelection on, the tax cuts?

[blm]

28. They were going to go in based on the 1991 UN resolution.

That's why they were spreading the propaganda on talkradio and GOP grassroots that the UN was irrelevant and wouldn't enforce its own resolutions since Saddam hadn't been in compliance since 1998.

That's why it was also imperative for those Dem lawmakers who were doing the negotiating to keep the UN in as part of the process. It cost them their vote but let's beat on them anyway just because we can, eh?

Doesn't anyone remember how many polls were going around the news networks "Is the UN still relevant?"

[mzmolly]

10. No, because he'd be accountable for the lack of WMD's etc...

he would not have risked it politically. Now he can call it a 'liberation' YIPPEE! :eyes:

[AndyTiedye]

18. Bush*? Accountable??

One cannot use those words in the same sentence.
The Shrub has the privilege of doing anything he wants and being held accountable for none of it.
Reagan never had teflon like this!
It's what you get when you own the news.

[mzmolly]

26. He isn't accountable NOW because Congress gave him the big green light.

He was completely unrestricted in how he approached the IRW.

[Padraig18]

31. And *some* Senators tried to make that point....

... but the pink tutu-wearers couldn't be confused with the facts.

[Donna Zen]

11. At the time

the regime argued that the resolutions that existed from Gulf War I was all they needed. It was only later that they tied up the Senate, and the Dem. party with a phoney "get the inspectors back in" resolution.

He was already moving troops before the resolution. Besides, this war was planned for a long, long time. It was going to happen.

[Liberal_Andy]

13. No, he needed help, and Congress gave it

but he LIED to congress when he said he'd work with the UN, and he LIED to the UN when he said 1441 was a two stage deal, and if Iraq was in violation, it would go back to the Security Council. Well, when he realized he didn't have the votes he said "The hell with the security council!" and went in anyway.

And said all along he had permission.

"Hey, Codpiece McFlightsuit, that Iraq invasion and occupation really turned out to be a SUPER idea, didn't it?"

[Padraig18]

15. Kick

:dem:

[Padraig18]

17. Damned few comment from Kerry, Edwards and Gephart supporters...

Most curious....

[Cocoa]

23. see post #8

unless you have me on ignore, in which case you can ignore this one too. :-)

[Padraig18]

25. Not on ignore.

Just didn't know who you supported. I think 'ignore' is for pussies. :hi::P

[Cocoa]

29. pretty good evidence, don't you think?

His lawyer was making the case.

[Padraig18]

32. I have no doubt they planned to 'steal the car'.

But the IWR put gas in the tank and left the keys in the ignition with the doors unlocked...

[Cocoa]

35. he had to committ impeachable offenses to go to war

he could be booted out ten times over for what he did b/w Oct. and March. The door was locked, the Club was on, it's just the cops are corrupt.

[blm]

38. Well, it seems you didn't notice the reply anyway.

.

[Cleita]

19. Veneer is nice, but fascists usually don't care

about it. They try to be legal, but will not be deterred if it doesn't go their way. Read about any fascist in the last century and you will see they paid lip service to laws, governing bodies, constitutions and oaths of office, but it never stopped them from doing what they wanted to do when opposed.

[Cleita]

20. Veneer is nice, but fascists usually don't care

about it. They try to be legal, but will not be deterred if it doesn't go their way. Read about any fascist in the last century and you will see they paid lip service to laws, governing bodies, constitutions and oaths of office, but it never stopped them from doing what they wanted to do when opposed.

[BootinUp]

21. politically unrealistic question

There was never a doubt he would get a resolution.

[Padraig18]

24. And isn't that a sad state of affairs, considering...

... that we are theoretically the opposition party?

[BootinUp]

33. of course

but wars against terrorism or whatever you choose to call it can change the political landscape, someday we can tell our children or grandchildren about it.

[Skittles]

27. of course he would have

he is a f***ing dictator

[tritsofme]

30. Well technically he can invade *anyone*

that HE determines was behind the 9-11 attacks.

Its HIS sole discretion, thats what Use of Force Authorization passed days after 9-11-01 said, its scary shit.

[Cocoa]

34. anyone remember Texasleo?

He posted a bunch of times a very good question, has Congress ever prevented a president from going to war? I don't remember if anyone came up with a good answer. I know they outlawed the Central American war, but the president worked around it anyway.

[mmonk]

36. Good question

He would probably try to find a way around the lack of a resolution.

[laura888]

39. what is IWR? n/t

n/t

[tinnypriv]

40. The Iraq War Resolution

Passed in Congress authorising the President to attack Iraq if he so chooses.

Quite a funny document if you read the entire thing.

[Padraig18]

41. Kick

[SeveneightyWhoa]

42. "International law? I'll call my lawyer".

That says it all.
The man, and everything he represents, does not give a shit about a damn thing not concerned with power, fortune, or empire.

[sandnsea]

43. That's everybody's argument against the vote!!!!!

At least one of them, depending on the day.

Everybody KNEW Bush was going to go to war with Iraq and Kerry was just a fool to believe he wouldn't.

Now you want to pretend the IWR gave him the cover to go?

This vote has been like arguing with Republicans, frankly, around and around in circles with no logic to it at all.

Kerry has a LONG record on wanting to deal with WMD, terrorism, money laundering and the drug/gun running that goes along with it. He voted because he wanted to make headway on this problem. It's very simple actually. Except for people looking for excuses to beat the hell out of him for it.

[tlb]

44. Clinton's Kosovo War says " yes".

"The Big Dog" took the US to war against a nation that had in no way attacked or threatened the US. This was done while stonewalling and blocking the Security Council from deciding the issue and with NO congressional resolution in support. And done in violation of the War Powers Act.

Bush showed at least enough courtesy of letting the Congress speak, but precedent shows it wasn't necessary.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

46. Of course he would have. He didn't need it to do a thing

except divide Democrats and tempt them into appearing unpatriotic.