Good If True
August 29th, 2002 - 11:16 am
Two stories nabbed off Drudge make for my kind of war.
U.S. General Tells Israelis War Will Start By Late November
White House Likely to Seek Approval From Congress On Invation Of Iraq
Legally, President Bush has every right to order action against Hussein. He is in violation of the 1991 ceasefire, of multiple UN resolutions, and present a clear and present danger to the security and interests of the United States.
But.
But this is still a democratic republic, and while this invasion will prove easier than many fear, the occupation will require many years, many soldiers, and many billions of dollars. And the President lacks the moral authority to commit those kinds of resources without some kind of permission.
I don’t have the Sept 14th resolution of force at my fingertips, but I think if you read that, you will see the authorization that we need. It’s a defacto declaration of war
This is an election year. Let the wusses either vote for the war (cheesing off their alt-press buddies) or against it (cheesing off between 60-80% of the nation, depending on the poll d’jour).
Either way, Bush wins.
Bill is right, the September 14th resolution is all Bush needs, given he puts the right spin on any offensive move (playing up the Al Qaeda-Iraq Czech connection for instance).
Of course. the congress should be making any decision for war, but I think they’re too cowardly to actually take any firm position. Expect another vague resolution, like the one on 9-14, that will greatly broaden Bush’s freedom to act while shielding them from criticism if things go south.
I’m all for asking Congress for a BONA FIDE (like in O Brother Where Art Thou) Declaration of War. Good old-fashioned war.
Like Greg says, Bush wins. He gets the declaration, and Democrats (and some Republicans) continue to look like sniveling little Francophiles.
The Sept 14th resolution may as well be a declaration of war and it definitely covers the Iraqi invasion.
But putting the Democrats on the spot before the election might be fun =) Do they irritate the majority of the country and reinforce the stereotype that Democrats are too soft to be in power during a crisis or do they vote for the invasion and make part of their base angry. Choices, choices =)
There is a world of difference between what is legal and what is right.
I’ll bet a zillion razbucknicks that Clinton wishes he’d never listeneds to lawyers tell him what is legal; had he done what was right and fessed up all would have been forgiven. When I heard lawyers were telling Bush he didn’t need Congress I had a heart attack.
We are a democratic republic and WE either go to war or WE don’t.
Keeping in mind that this is the Weinberger doctrine all over again. When Cap said that the nation should not go to war unless the public supported it, this is what he was referring to: making sure that there would not be back-bencher carping, whining, and later claims of “Not our fault.”
If anything would nail down the mood of the nation, it would be a debate in Congress and a decision to go to WAR.
Just a thought….
The September 14th resolution empowers the President to go after those responsible for 9/11. There is no evidence of an Iraqi connection to 9/11. Our own intelligence agencies and the chief of Czech foreign intelligence doubt that the alleged meeting between Atta and the Iraqi spy ever happened.
The idea that the 11 year old use of force resolution authorizing Gulf War I also authorizes Gulf War II can barely pass the straight face test. A fair reading of that resolution and the UN Sec Council resolutions it incorporates wouldn’t have allowed Bush 41 to do more than expel Hussein from Kuwait. But somehow it empowers his son to overthrow Hussein 11 years later. Get real, bloggers.