Reply #7: Legally, you're right... [View All]

[punpirate]

... it's not a trivial distinction. But, we're not debating the legalities--we're acknowledging political realities, which is pretty much what you're saying by suggesting that "Bush was going to invade no matter what." But, let's not kid ourselves, the language of the IWR didn't put restrictions on Bush--it enabled Bush to proceed, however much you may wish to think otherwise--particularly because it specifically referenced the 1998 resolution for regime change in Iraq. It repeatedly referenced that resolution, meaning that the sense of Congress agreed with the intentions of Bush. To understand the IWR, you must also read the applicable portions of the 1998 resolution referenced in the IWR. That earlier resolution made manifest the desire for unilateral action on the part of the US.

I think you're ignoring one point--had Bush invaded without Congressional approval, that was a de facto case for impeachment. Had Congress failed to impeach, it forever gave away all its power to the Executive--and, everyone would have known that we were in the midst of a dictatorship. The 2004 election, had there been one under those circumstances, would have been different--much different.

At least, I hope it would have been. Second-guessing this is like asking would the world and the country been different had Kennedy not been assassinated. One just never knows.