History Lesson III
President Bush on the resolution* that preceded the Iraq war:
"That will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. This is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say 'We support the administration's ability to keep the peace.' That's what this is all about."
-September 19, 2002
[*You know the one that people now discuss as if it were a declaration of war, when it actually wasn't, but boy did that Bush administration play the Congress for fools, huh?]
posted by BlueDuck @ 7:36 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Huh?? What resolution are you talking about?? Or where is this mis-information coming from?
House Joint Resolution 114, which was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, states that it is "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq."
The name of the bill is: "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"
And it specifically states in section 3, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq"
It passed in the House 296 - 133 and passed the Senate 77 - 23.
Here's how Congress voted on the bill that specifically states in it's title "Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq:"
Senate
House
Then Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said "he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment."
He also said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored."
So again I ask, how did the "Bush administration play Congress for fools" when the plain text of the bill states that it is "to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"
I guess the retraction will be coming....
And technically President Bush would not have needed a resolution from Congress in 2002 because Clinton already signed into law that it is "the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
I believe that was called the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
sorry about the first post sounding too snotty and sarcastic. I didn't mean to be.
No offense taken at all.
Joe- the quote I used came from here:
President Bush to Send Iraq Resolution to Congress Today
Regarding your comments, yes that is the resolution I meant- the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
Firstly, let me just say that the fact the Senate and House voted for it is to me not the issue. They were stupid to do so and many have stated now they regret the decision (if only we had more like Jeffords, etc, who stood by their principles all along). I think part of the decision by many to vote 'yes' was based on the 2002 midterm elections where they saw good men like Max Cleland lose their Senate seats after being destroyed and ripped apart by the Republicans who misinterpreted (surprise) their decisions to make it seem like they didn't support the war on terror and that type of thing (in Cleland's case, even putting pictures of Saddam next to him in ads). The message made clear by the 2002 Democratic losses was: Support Bush on this war or you too will lose your seat. The Democrats were cowed. Many still say moo, sadly.
Also, the information they were given was false and/or misrepresented. This war was presented to the Congress as being about a) a nuclear threat to the United States, and b) the connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda. The war on terror link made to sell the war was BS, as we know. Even Condoleeza Rice has now (unintentionally admitted) that they decided not to blame Al Quaeda specifically for 9/11 and take a "bolder approach" to rethinking the Middle East... aka the stated, pre-9/11 agenda of the Project For A New American Century. As I also posted earlier this morning, Cheney is now denying statements he made on the matter. It just looks bad.
As for the nuclear threat aspect, we know now the administration deceived the public on that. As just one example, watch the Hardball segment shown here. A major NY Times report (front page, above the fold) came out about Saddam's nuclear ambitions. The administration, ie. Dick Cheney, went on TV to use this Times report to corroborate their claims about Iraq. Now here's the catch- Look at the byline on that Times article. Judy Miller. And who (as we now know) was Ms. Miller getting her info from? Lewis Libby. Who got his info and took orders from Cheney. So Cheney's office gave Miller info who then put it in the Times which was used by Cheney on TV to defend their claims about the Saddam threat. See what happened there? Essentially Cheney was quoting himself to validate his own claims. No one knew that then, of course, but the Plame investigation has fortunately made these connections clear. That is clear and unquestionable deception and they all (including the retired Ms. Run Amok) deserve to answer for it.
Whether or not they outright lied is certainly debatable (I believe they did, of course), but it's not debatable that they misled people on many fronts... regardless of what official findings have been made at this point as of yet.
Back to the resolution-
The wording, as you noted, states: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary"... I doubt anyone in Congress anticipated him using it in the way he did (remember this was supposed to be a 3-day war, not an endless occupation). The wording of that resolution could not have allowed any Congressmen to have anticipated what would follow.
As Bush himself said in that quote I used in the main entry, the resolution was not stating the country was going to war, but to further "the administration's ability to keep the peace".
Of course, Bush wanted invasion all along, but that's not what the resolution was all about. President Bush said this all about diplomacy and continued to pretend he was interested in diplomacy right up until the eve of invasion (when UN weapon inspectors, who history would validate, begged him for more time and he refused). That resolution passed in the Fall of 2002.... but even as late as December of that year, Bush was still saying things like "You said we're headed to war in Iraq -- I don't know why you say that. I hope we're not headed to war in Iraq."
So, no, despite the purposely vague wording, the resolution was not presented as being about invading specifically. That's why, along with all the hyperbole about 'mushroom clouds' etc, that I say that Congress was played for a fool.
They were lead to believe that a) Saddam was a nuclear threat and b) Bush was interested in a diplomatic solution. Both were untrue. The former can be blamed on bad intelligence, the latter cannot
Also, regarding your comment that Clinton supported regime change in Iraq, I find that somewhat irrevelant to the main issue of what Bush said and did. It's easy to blame Clinton, but he left office in January 2001, so maybe he shouldn't be the fall guy anymore. And I never did agree with Clinton on that situation. I love Clinton, but disagreed with many of his decisions (ie. cumming on people's pretty new dresse; that's just bad aim). Keep in mind that hard-line 1998 Iraq act Clinton signed was, in no small part, due to the influence of Bush buddies like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Bolton, etc... Left on his own, I have to doubt Clinton considered Iraq a priority. A troubling situation, yes, a threat and priority, no.
Besides, you feel strongly that Clinton was a liar and horrid President and an immoral scumbag, so why would you want to base your defense on him? After all, part of Bush's 2000 campaign was to have a more 'humble' foreign policy than Crazy Man Clinton's- ie. no nation building. And one can't say "Well, 9/11 changed that", because this administration was planning this war for years before 9/11 and even during the pre-9/11 part of the Bush presidency.
A lot of things were said and done in 2002/early 2003 before the war, but history has already made clear the falsehoods of much of that and the deceptions used to sell it... The bottom line is that it cannot be well argued that, knowing then what we know now, that the American people or the Congress would have supported this disastrous war.
Post a Comment
<< Home