|
In fact, the entire use of IWR, Iraq War Resolution is another complete misnomer, created by the media. THe Iraq War Resolution does not exist. Like all legislation of this nature, it is subject to the interpretation of the person who is using the law. Bush used it to justify stopping his involvement with the U.N. though the legislation itself clearly states that once Bush engaged the U.N. he thne had to leave it up to the U.N. to decide what the appropriate course of action was, unless Bush could prove to Congress and the nation that delay on the part of the U.N. would result in a direct threat to the U.S., its allies, or its interests. That is the way the law reads, It does not authorize war outside of those conditions.
Kerry authorized Bush going to the U.N. to get them to deal with the problems presented by Iraq's continual beaking of international law, international agreements, and U.N. Resolutions. Or to use increaing degrees of force to do so with the U.N. Or finally, if there was a real threat to the United States, its interests, or its allies by Iraq, directly, or indirectly, by Iraq aiding and abetting the groups responsible for the events of September 11th. The "Authorization of the Use of Military Force In Iraq Act of 2002" Authorized these things and these things alone, and in that specific order.
Nothing in the act allowed for without meeting a specific set of conditions. Only if the U.N. could be reported to be failing in its efforts to require Saddam Hussein to abide by the 16 resolutions passed between 1991 and 2002, and this resulting in direct or indirect threat allowed Bush to use any degree of force, up to and including war deemed necessary defend national security, get Saddam to abide by the conditions that were continually being placed on him, and which he continually broke. It was Bush and his administratio who interpreted the conditions in March of 2003 as having come to the point in which the U.N had failed to enfoce its own resolutions, and had reached the stage that the resolution called for, in which the U.N. is found to be unable to support its own resolutions and that this consitutied a threat to the U.S. Democrats did not agree that it dod, nor did they agree that Bush had made the case that the conditions set in the resolution had occurred. Only the meeting of the conditions set in the act authorized the use of force. Democrats did not agree to this either, and as the event have shown, the conditions that Bush claimed warranted the U.S. breaking off meeting with the U.S. and going to war did not exist. Democrats at the time indicated very clearly that they did not agree with the president that the conditions existed, nor did they agree that going to the United Nations had been a failure. It was democrats who insisted that Bush remain engaged with the U.N. and allow the inspectors to continue inspections and finish their reporting cycle which according to other resoluions named in the introduction of the Iraq Resolution, required another three months inspection, under the resolutions establishing UNMOVIC's existance and presence in Iraq. Only then could Bush actually make the first claim that going to the U.N. had failed.
In fact, all that the Iraq resolution did was confirm the terms set in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which established that the U.S. had decided that the regime of Saddam Hussein should be removed due to his failure to abide by the terms he agreed to after the Gulf War. Kofi Annan came up with another set of resolutions and agreements from Saddam which intervened and prevented full scale war in Iraq in 1998, but the terms still stood. If Iraq was found to continuue in non-compliance, then regine change had already been authorized in 1998.
While everyon is claiming that the media did Dean, it was Deanho manipulated the media by the continual claim that the resolution gave Bush a "blank check", unconditional support for going to war in Iraq on any terms set by Bush. The media conspired with Dean to create an act which does not exist, called the Iraq War Resolution, the ever mentioned but non existant IWR, which simply does not exist, but was created by the media while it backed up the popular, spectacle, that was Howard Dean while at the height of his popularity, and was most certainly going to be the nominee. As the inaccuracy of Deans statements about the resolution became more obvious to the public, the media hype about the Iraq War Resolution, has become less popular, less sensationalistic. Less beleiveable. While 2 out of 3 people voting in the primaries and caucuses cite opposition to Bush's War in Iraq, citing the vote on the resolution obviously is not detrimental to the candidates who supported it. It becomes obvious that Deans interpretation of the act does not stand up to even the slight scrutiny the voters give it. Kerry's interpretation of the act is most obviously the most beleived interpretation.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(818 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
