'The First Lie: Congress never voted for the Iraq war' aka Kerry/Edwards

[Myra]

"While all of the Democratic presidential candidates (except Sen. Joseph Lieberman) criticize President George W. Bush for his unilateral recklessness in starting a war against Iraq, they are missing a larger point: The invasion was not just reckless. It was unconstitutional.

It is time to set the record straight. The United States Congress never voted for the Iraq war. Rather, Congress voted for a resolution in October 2002 which unlawfully transferred to the president the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United States Constitution vests the awesome power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the United States Congress.

Those members of Congress—including certain Democratic presidential candidates—who voted for that October resolution cannot now claim that they were deceived, as some of them do. By unlawfully ceding the war-declaring power to the president, they allowed the president to start a war against Iraq based on whatever evidence or whatever lies he chose. The members of Congress who voted for that October resolution are as complicit in this illegal war as is the president himself.
..."

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=14719&mode=&order=0


Agreed. They were putting politics above principle, personal ambition above the lives of others.

"The members of Congress who voted for that October resolution are as complicit in this illegal war as is the president himself."

[edzontar]

1. I agree. They are as accountable as Bush.

Thus I have consistently supported the anti-war candidates.

Iraq is Kerry's war as much as it is bush's, at least in the LEGAL sense.

His post-war excuses and hand-wringing would get him nowhere in a Nuremberg-type trial.

[library_max]

2. This is bull.

Bush had the intelligence, the members didn't. Bush at least encouraged his staff and sources to manipulate the intelligence, the members didn't. The IWR was not a declaration of war and did not require Bush to invade under any circumstances. Bush did not need the IWR to invade - other presidents had invaded other nations without Congressional permission, and Bush was threatening to do just that, without talking to the UN at all, before the IWR passed.

The IWR was a fraud, perpetrated by Bush against Congress. And the decision to invade was Bush's and Bush's alone.

[blm]

3. by this standard every war not declared by congress is illegal.

That includes every war since WW1 doesn't it?

[mouse7]

6. WWII, UN, and NATO Actions legal

WWII was obviously a declared war.

Military actions we participate in as a result of Treaty committments are allowed as well. Treaties are considered binding law. Therefore, if the UN or NATO declare a military action, we are allowed to meet our treaty committments.

So Korea (UN), Iraq I (UN), and Kosovo(NATO) were legal.

[bigtree]

4. Transfer of power to the president?

The article states that:

Congress cannot transfer to the president its exclusive power to declare war any more than it can transfer its exclusive power to levy taxes. Such a transfer is illegal. These are non-delegable powers held only by the United States Congress.

In drafting the War Powers Clause of Article I, Section 8, the framers of the Constitution set out to create a nation that would be nothing like the model established by European monarchies. They knew the dangers of empowering a single individual to decide whether to send the nation into war. They had sought to make a clean break from the kings and queens of Europe, those rulers who could, of their own accord, send their subjects into battle. That is why the framers wisely decided that only the people, through their elected representatives in Congress, should be entrusted with the power to start a war.


Therefore, such a transfer of power never took place.


The War Powers Act states that:

(a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro temp ore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(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 sub section (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.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

(a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro temp ore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro temp ore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of Untied States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress

(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,

(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or

(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

(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.



The IWR states that:

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution



Therefore, Bush could proceed anyway under the WPA for 60 days without congressional approval. In that event it would be unlikely that Congress would withdraw forces.


Bush's position at the time was that 1441 was sufficient authority to do what he wanted. Also, loopholes in the War Powers Act referenced in the resolution, provided more than enough authority to commit forces for up to 60 days without congressional approval. In the unlikely event that the resolution would have failed, the president would have almost certainly moved forward with his pre-disposed agenda to invade and occupy. Congress would then be loath to remove those forces and retreat.

The resolution was seen by some Democrats, like John Kerry, as a vehicle to steer Bush back to the U.N. and hopefully forestall war. Indeed Sen. Kerry and others were able to get language to that effect inserted into the bill. That's where, in the public debate we effectively get to 'Bush lied'. Bush lied to Congress, the American people, and the international community in his reckless rush to war. Foisting the blame on a congressional resolution, which in part, sought to reign Bush in, takes the heat off of Bush. Bush pushed ahead. He had planned to all along. He had the power. The resolution was a minor detour.

He sought to use Congress as cover but was forced back to the U.N. He got a chilly reception there but he stuck his chin out and pushed past that body and Congress. You know the rest. 1000+ responses to other posts to choose from . . .

[sandnsea]

7. resolution part of the act

Somewhere in that act it includes declarations of war, authorizations and emergencies. I'm not seeing it here. Can you point me to it or post it?

Congress passing a resolution or authorization is what the War Powers Act calls for. People who try to pretend an Authorization is an order for the President to go to war are just being intentionally obtuse. The Commander in Chief always has the final authority for deploying troops.

[bigtree]

9. Here's a link to the resolution

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

I think I know what you are asking but you can go pluck it out. :)

[Bombtrack]

5. Congress hasn't declared war in 60 years

so your point isn't really solvent. Every major candidate other than Lieberman favored the forcing of Saddam to comly with UN resolution 1441, by invasion if necessary, through the international community, but not unilaterally before an imminent threat presented itself. That is what they voted for.

[mouse7]

8. However, we have met treaty committments

When a Treaty that has been passed by the US Senate causes a military obligation, that would be legal.

The UN Treaty and NATO are examples.

[bigtree]

10. Right

Through loopholes in the WPA, he could do what he wanted with our forces if he makes certain broad determinations. Congress would be in the losing position to either approve the deployment or withdraw forces. The IWR was the only vehicle that survived the republican-controlled body that could be influenced by restrictive language. A 'no' vote would not have restrained Bush's predisposed march to war. But, some Democrats in the Senate sought to reign Bush in by including language mandating a return to the international body to determine whether:

1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Bush, as we watched, disregarded the implications of restraint in the resolution and pushed past Congress, the American people, and the international community in his rush to invade and occupy.