Perpetuating the mischaracterization that many critics of the Vietnam war opposed the troops is irresponsible. Lumping John Kerry into the same group as the Bush administration in a commentary titled “WAR HAWKS SHOW CALLOUS DISREGARD FOR WORKING-CLASS TROOPS” is illogical. In fact, Kerry was one of the most prominent critics of U.S. policy during the Vietnam war. Related to Iraq, if you look at Kerry's speeches from the early 1990s to two months before the current Iraq war, you will see that he never promoted the war that Bush started and was consistent in his opposition to war. If your implication is that the vote to authorize the use of force was a vote for war, that is a mischaracterization of a vote to hold Bush accountable. By now it should be clear to all that Bush has and will continue to act without regard for the rule of law.
Bush defied Congress with regard to spying. He trampled over the FISA law which allowed him to conduct warrantless search for a 72-hour period, but never on Americans, and he did that anyway.
According to the War Powers Resolution, Bush could have legally gone to war after consulting Congress, which is what the resolution was, even if it did not pass. The resolution was specific, Bush violated the specifics. The resolution was in line with the WPR, but it was not a declaration to go to war. It was an authorization to use force providing specific conditions were met. Under the WPR, a similar condition exists, but does not preclude the president from going to war without prior Congressional approval.
As in the 72-hour period required to file a warrant for surveillance, Bush only needed to report back to Congress after executing a war--- provide justification so to speak. He could have taken that route, the Republicans in congress and most of the country was behind him. He would have done it and it would have been a done deal. By the time Bush had to report back, that "Mission Accomplished" statement would have already been made.
So the IWR didn't make it easier, it specifically stated what criteria had to be met if he started a war. Without the resolution he would have defied Congress. With the resolution he not only defied Congress, he defied specific criteria laid out by Congress.
Although Bush manipulated the evidence, Congress learned of this long before the war. As a result, John Kerry issued a stern warning to Bush not to take action. From Kerry’s speech on national security -- Georgetown University Thursday, January 23, 2003:
I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world.
I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.
Bush took the country to war anyway.
Linking Iraq to WMD, along with Bush's repeated linking of Iraq to 9/11, created the impression of an imminent threat to many in the public, which is why he enjoyed high public support.
The applicable section of the War Powers Act:
Sec. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(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 subsection (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.
snip...
(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.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/warpower.htm This article by John Dean lays out the problem:
The last great debate over presidential war powers
Truman's decision became the precedent for the unpopular Vietnam War (1961-1975). By 1973, the war-weary Congress challenged the President's war powers, concerned it had lost all power over the unending war in Vietnam, by introducing a sweeping War Powers Resolution
This resolution, designed to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President" are involved in decisions to use American military forces, acknowledges that a President can start a war without Congress -- so long as he advises Congress he is doing so. Then, if Congress does not either declare war or otherwise authorize the use of the military within 60 days from the start of the hostilities, the President must terminate such use of the military.
Over the veto of a Watergate-weakened Richard Nixon, the War Powers Resolution was adopted. But presidents have largely ignored it.
The War Powers Resolution, moreover, seemed to have pleased no one. Liberals, for example, criticized the resolution for permitting the president to unilaterally initiate hostilities for 60 days, before Congress can exercise its constitutional powers.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/columns/fl.dean.warpowers/There is so much disinformation and misinformation being presented as fact by the media, pundits and columnists that the only thing easy to understand is why the public is confused.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
