Reply #40: Principled opposition to Bush's war is to be respected and encouraged [View All]

[bigtree]

But I reject the argument that those same principles were betrayed in just voting for the IWR.

Some Democrats saw the resolution as a way to restrain Bush and send him back to the U.N. My candidate was desperate to stifle Bush's argument for immediate invasion and sought to mandate a return to the international table by limiting Bush's authority in the resolution.

Whether or not the resolution had passed, Bush was intent on invading and occupying Iraq. He had gone around for days proclaiming that 1441 gave him the authority to do whatever he wanted. If the resolution had failed, the president I think, would have committed forces anyway as decades of presidents had also put troops in the field for 60 days without congressional approval. In that event, I believe, the Congress would be loath to retreat and remove forces. Then, by law a resolution would have been drawn up, likely resembling the one we have now; urging Bush back to the U.N. and calling for internationalization of the conflict.

That is how determined presidents get us into war. Check and checkmate. It's democracy-lite. It sucks, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to restrain a president from committing forces because of the loopholed prerogative inherent in the War Powers Act, which is referenced in the IWR. The only way to direct him is through some sort of resolution. Remember, we were outraged by his plans but the majority of Americans didn't make much of a fuss. We had lost the PR battle before the vote.

It is possible that a unified front of opposition to the resolution could have turned the public against the plan to invade. But I don't think that was at all possible with the republican majority in the Senate, and in view of Bush's plan to invade with or without congressional approval.

Your flogging around of the deaths is disgusting. You don't hold a lock on morality with your view and neither do I. You make no credible connection between the IWR vote and Bush's unilateral, preemptive end run around Congress. Therefore, your attempt to place blame on those in Congress who sought to restrain Bush through the resolution falls well short of any acquiescence on their part in his committing of our forces to war.