IWR- Was opposing Bush enough? Was that Congress' only responsibility?

[bigtree]

My view and my aim is that Bush should be held completely responsible for pushing us into his war on Iraq. From his phony 1441 presentation to his phony briefings which exaggerated the threat from Iraq, to the phony information that his administration hawked in secret briefings with Congress. I don't see the value in allowing Bush to hide behind a congressional resolution that sought to stifle his manufactured mandate to invade and occupy Iraq.

Congress is the lever. The hold the purse strings. But the president has the ultimate responsibility under the Constitution for committing forces. If Bush can disregard Congress's mandate with impunity then what good is there in holding Congress accountable when the president ignores the law? Did the president even read the resolution?

Nothing in there says drop the U.N. and invade. It says the opposite. And he stepped around them.

The resolution was designed to get Saddam to let inspectors back in by backing the 1441 U.N. resolution with the threat of force. Inspectors were let back in and pulled when Bush rushed forward. If Bush had given the inspectors more time perhaps they would have taken the question of WMDs off of the table.

That was the effect of the resolution. Allowing the inspectors to re-enter Iraq and proceed with verification. We could guess, but they would verify. Bush pushed ahead of Congress in his invasion. He cut the inspectors off with his rush to invade. No Democrat advocated that, save Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.

Why did Congress trust the president? What guarantee do we have that any elected official will follow the Law?

When Congress passes a resolution that mandates seeking swift action by the U.N. security council before proceeding, and proscribes working with the international community until it is determined that 'reliance on diplomatic of peaceful means alone" would not force Saddam's hand, that is the law. The president took an oath promising to follow the law.

Thus, as the resolution states:

(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; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Didn't the president unlawfully disregard these provisions? Don't these provisions represent the restraint that I maintain is implied in the resolution. Isn't this actually a case of the president pushing past Congress, the American people, and the international community in his race to war?

These are the foremost provisions of the resolution that I believe involves the president and his word.

1. Defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

According to who? According to what evidence presented. Doesn't the administration have an obligation to present the threat in a accurate and truthful manner? Did they? Weren't they obligated to under this resolution?

They had a chance to modify the war in separate funding bills. Voting against them is as close to post-war opposition as any of the others in the Senate can manage without total obstinance. This is in the wake of evidence of no WMD's; hind views; and evidence mounting of the president inflating the threat.

2. Enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

U.N. Res.1441 was negotiated with bogus evidence presented by Powell. But the public still doesn't know the nature or the amount of evidence presented. Some were convinced some weren't. You can see in the floor statements of Democrats who voted for the resolution that they didn't abide risking the possibility that Iraq might restart a nuclear program, remote-controlled bombers, whatever. That was on the basis of bogus info.

But remember, there were no inspectors inside Iraq to verify anything. One of the Democratic supporters of the resolution's intentions was to pressure Iraq with the U.N. resolution backed up by the threat of force. It worked until Bush pushed ahead and drove them out again. Those who would hold the president accountable are indebted to Hans Blix for his presence there and his candor.

Still some will insist on holding those who sought to reign him in responsible for the sins of Bush. It makes no sense, politically or on the facts at hand, to claim that every Democrat who voted for the resolution advocated or acquiesced to unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation in their support for the IWR.

The authority to commit forces is not inherent in the IWR. That authority is contained in the War Powers Act which decades of presidents have used to commit forces for 60 days without congressional approval. I believe that Congress would be loath to remove forces after they were committed.

The only input that Congress had to the president's rush to war was a 'no' vote, which I don't believe would have restrained the president, and to attempt to place restrictions on the president's behavior through a resolution.

Principled opposition to Bush's war is to be respected and encouraged. 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. Many were 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 stinks, 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. I believe that the only way to effectively direct him is through some sort of resolution passed by Congress.

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.

Democrats who voted for the IWR didn't feel that the president would be restrained with a 'no' vote. They sought to influence his behavior through the resolution.

Bush's position before, during and after invasion was that 1441 gave him authority to do any thing he wanted to in that region. He wanted cover, but the IWR doesn't give him cover for his unilateral, preemptive invasion. Nowhere in the bill does it mandate what he did.

Bush disregarded the restraint implied in the resolution and pushed past Congress, the American people, and the world community in his predisposed zeal to invade and occupy Iraq.

I was also opposed to the president's actions; before the vote and at the U.N with Powell's phony presentation (I couldn't believe they bought that load.) I anguished over the vote which threatened to wipe out the Senate Democrats because Bush had taken them to the edge of the mid-term elections.

Congress can act, but the president holds ultimate responsibility to follow the mandate of the people as expressed by their representatives. Congress didn't give Bush permission for his preconceived invasion. They acted in accordance with their obligations under the Constitution and the War Powers Act and did not give a blank check.

[Kashka-Kat]

1. my philosophy - we all are responsible, & we all continue to be responsible

OK maybe some more responsible than others... but still...

Each of us had, and have, a part to play in the larger drama... whether its just a matter of sending an email or screwing up your courage and talking back to your pro-war Bush loving acquaintances.

I say this acknowledging that I didn't and still am not doing all I can to end this d*mn illegal occupation & economic pillaging (signing over assets to multinational corps).

Re: congress, the info about why not to go to war was all out there, widely available on the internet and the non-USA media. What were the unprecedented huge antiwar demos that took place all over the world about, for crying out loud, if not for all the reasons why not to go to war?? At the time of IWR it was widely viewed as an "enabling" of Bush... anyone who's ever signed a contract, sold a house, done business with anyone knows that no matter how much you might like and trust the other person, the wording of the contract is important and you better know all the ramifications before signing. This business about "we signed on to give Bush a stronger hand in negotiating" is lame, lame, lame.

There is simply no excuse for having signed it except maybe if they were to make an apology and say "I thought I was representing the will of my constituents at the time" I'd buy that. And then we could move on from there. But to abdicate all responsibility for a mistake does not sit well with me AT ALL.... Be an adult and own up. And then we can move on.

[bigtree]

3. I believe it was the knowledge that we all had which compelled some to vote for the IWR

. . . the knowledge that Bush was prepared to move forward with the invasion no matter what Congress ultimately did. He said exactly that before the vote. Some Democrats saw the IWR as the only chance they had to steer him back to the U.N.. Certainly Levin's amendment would have required even more coordination with Congress, but it's clear that many of the Democrats who voted for the resolution were looking at the IWR as the ONLY legislative vehicle they had in the republican controlled Congress to voice their intent that Bush "exhaust all peaceful means" and return to the U.N. Security Council before military action was considered. It didn't work, but there was really no chance of stopping Bush from his STATED intent to press forward, no matter what Congress decided. He declared he had the authority, and he certainly had the means to deploy troops without prior approval from Congress.

The IWR was NOT the trigger which initiated the invasion or ANY justification for the occupation. It was, for the majority of Democrats who voted for it, the LAST CHANCE they had to legislatively restrain Bush, who had made clear his intent to press forward in disregard of the will of the American people, Congress, or, even the U.N. who he relied on as his main excuse for advancing.

[cali]

2. Unfuckingbelievable.

"But the president has the ultimate responsibility under the Constitution for committing forces"

The exact opposite is the truth. Only Congress can declare war.

Your post is disgustingly Orwellian and utter stinking bullshit.

[bigtree]

4. this is a disgusting attack on my opinion. You can't stop folks from disagreeing by bullying

There is a difference between committing forces and declaring war. You know well that the War Powers Act has been disregarded since its passage. The president has clear authority to deploy troops without prior authorization due to a loophole in that act. It make no sense to pretend that he didn't.

And "ultimate responsibility" is not the same as 'authority'. It is the president's ultimate responsibility when troops are deployed. Congress can certainly declare war, but it is the president's responsibility to carry that mandate out. There will likely never be a military deployment in my lifetime which is first declared by Congress. That's my belief from years of waiting for a majority to support a tightening of the Act. The power of the president to deploy troops for a period of time before informing Congress gives him the power to initiate war, notwithstanding the Congress' power to put a halt to that deployment when they exercise their responsibility under the Constitution to weigh in.

As long as that loophole exists, presidents will likely oblige themselves of it when facing an opposing Congress. That makes THEM ultimately responsible for that deployment, not Congress.

[bigtree]

5. satisfied with hit and run character attacks, but not really interested in any reasonable debate

. . . noted.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. The IWR was a failed attempt at ass-covering.

It gave the politicians a facile way to straddle the fence. Which most did.

If, all the Democrats and some Republicans had voted against it, Bush would still have gone to war because it would still have passed.

What's missing from your apologia is the fact that most of the public supported Bush and his call for war. The politicians, as usual, were aware of this and did what was politically expedient at the time.

Just as they still vote to fund the war and the military, not as acts of political courage, but acts of moral and political cowardice.

[bigtree]

7. All of that may well be true

But, folks with this pov have to assert that the statements of some Democrats preceding the votes were lies. I have a hard time regarding all of these politicians' statements on this (including Obama's AND Clinton's) as lies and accepting the uncorroborated opinions offered by critics of their motives and intentions as the gospel truth.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. That is a judgement that we all have to make. Isn't it?

I believe, based on their statements, the mood of the country, the obvious political ramifications of the way a vote for/against the IWR would have, and what actually occurred after the vote, that the politicians who voted for it, did so out political expediency.

That politicians lie, I take as a given.

[bigtree]

9. at least politicians can be held acountable for theirs

but, you're correct, that is a judgment we have to make.