This just isn't the case.
And again:
In his "War on Terror" speech on Veteran's Day in PA, Bush said "more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate - who had access to the same intelligence - voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."
This is not true.
No one voted for a war. No one voted to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
Here's what was voted for:
"The President is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region."Since, according to our Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war, the president had to seek their approval. Even then, Bush did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress. Bush sought, and received, authority to use US military force to back UN Resolutions which would counter any threat posed by Iraq, defending our national security.
- The culminating statement of Congress' Joint Resolution, SJ Res 45, Authorization For Use of US Armed Forces, September 30, 2002
It is legally the UN Security Council, backed by a unanimous vote of its 15 member states, that can use military force against a country deemed a threat. Bush knew this, so he lobbied the Security Council for a Resolution that, if voted upon, would authorize the use of force if Iraq didn't comply. Bush got close to this on November 8, 2002 with the infamous UN Resolution 1441. It required Iraq to reveal all its WMD to UN inspectors or face "serious consequences".
Bush didn't believe the findings of the UN inspectors. So he called for a Resolution authorizing military action. No UN Resolution authorizing force against Iraq was brought to a vote - since at least France, Germany, Russia, and China were against this - and you needed unanimous approval for military action.
So, On March 20, 20032, in an illegitimate move, without UN approval, without a declaration of war from Congress, Bush struck Iraq. It was his decision, not the UN's, not Congress'.
That is my understanding.
1 "The war" here is referring to the conflict in Iraq. This is distinct from the "war on terror", although how you wage war on an indeterminate act, and not a person or a state, is beyond me.
2 AP Photo shown. Caption: "An explosion is seen in Baghdad early this morning as the U.S. launches a war on Iraq with an air assault on the capital in a surgical strike intended to kill Saddam Hussein and top Iraqi leaders."
4 comments:
Your understanding is correct. How is this so difficult to understand?
I don't know why it's difficult.
But when I hear "Kerry voted for the war, Hillary voted for the war, etc.", I wonder why people believe this. No one voted for a war.
I don't think any Democrat (or Republican for that matter) should be brought to task (or be pressured to apologize! e.g. Edwards ) for voting for this resolution. I mean, who wouldn't vote to authorize force to support the UN in a matter of national security? It was never a declaration of war.
This is my understanding
While you are correct to say that it was never a formal 'declaration of war' it is clear that it was necessary, whether congress thought so or not. You argue that Bush was illigitimate because he didn't have the backing of the UN. Well my friend, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe the UN passed like 50 resolutions since the First GULF WAR commanding Saddamn to give info on its weapons programs, allow weapons inspectors into the country, stop shooting at coalition planes in the no fly zone, and the list goes on and on. And I haven't even mentioned the oil for food scandal through the UN in which saddamn bribed countless high ranking UN officials, again showing his ability to UNDERMINE THE UN at every opportunity. Saddamn scoffed at the UN, ignored EVERY SINGLE resolution it passed. He did not believe the UN would follow through militarily, which of course was true. That took a courageous US president who went against much world opinion to do what he thought was right.
Thats my understanding
@mark
I don't care how "courageous" it was **(by the way, how does sending other men to their death count as courageous? [oh, he could've lost his job? OH WELL])** it was still unconstitutional. For a President to declare war, he(she) needs backing from Congress. It doesn't matter if a foreign power denies the requests of some Bereaucrats mostly based in Europe. It's OUR country, not the President's, and he needs OUR REPRESENTATIVE'S backing to put US in danger.
Post a Comment