Thursday, August 19, 2004
Questions for Bush...would you do it again?
The Bush Campaign and it's surrogates have worked very hard in the last couple of weeks to attack John Kerry on the vote for the Iraq Resolution to give the President authority to deal military with Iraq. In my research on this topic I decided to look over the Republican National Committee website. Quick first impression: for a group that's supposed to be promoting Bush, these guys sure spend very little time actually promoting Bush. It's all about Kerry.
That said, the basic premise seems to be that Kerry has been inconsistent on his stance with Iraq. First he's for the war...then he's against the war....then he's for the war again. Wow! I'm thinking to myself. Is Kerry really that inconsistent? Could he possibly be that mixed up on what he believes in?
The vote that the GOP talk about is the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. It seems that this might be a good time to revisit this particular Resolution...just to refresh my memory.
In terms of force, Bush was authorized by Congress to:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. 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.
Interesting. So if Iraq is threatening the security of the United States, the President may use military force. Or if it's necessary to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions, the President may use military force.
The Resolution also says (also under Section 3):
b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(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) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
So if diplomacy isn't working to protect the security of the US, the President can use military force. If diplomacy won't get the UN Security Council Resolutions enforced, then the President can use military force. If there's a connection to 9/11, the President can use military force.
Makes sense to me. If there's a determination that any of this stuff is going on, military force seems justified. While I wouldn't have trusted Bush personally to be judicious with use of force in regard to Iraq...I can see why Kerry did. A US Senator wants to trust the Commander-In-Chief to do the right thing.
So let's break it down:
1. Did Iraq threaten the security of the United States? Nope. Nowhere has it been found anywhere that Iraq was a threat to US security. The lame attempts by Bush (yellowcake uranium, UAV's, etc) turned out to be completely untrue..and there's a good chance Bush's people knew it was untrue before they invaded. There was certainly plenty of intelligence out there to debunk Bush's claims when he made them.
2.Was military force necessary to enforce UN Security Council resolutions? Nope. The main UN resolution on the table was UN Security Council Resolution 1441(warning: PDF file). The Resolution essentially said that Iraq had to turn over all documentation on their weapons programs and weapons status. Iraq also had to allow UN weapons inspectors into the country and they had to be allowed unfettered access to whatever sites they wished to view. As it turns out, Iraq was cooperating with UN inspectors. It's likely that Saddam believed weapons had been destroyed. Hussein's scientists had been tricking him into thinking he had things he didn't have, too. Iraq probably did turn over all the documentation they had. But Bush and his people weren't careful and thorough enough to work with the UN and allow the inspectors to do their jobs. Without this careful and judicous use of power, there's no way we could have known these things.
3.Was Iraq connected in any way to the assault on the US on September 11? Nope. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11. Bush has said so himself on more than one occasion. No evidence exists that Hussein's regime had anything to do with 9/11.
What's curious here is...why are we asking Kerry about his vote? Why aren't we asking Bush, "If you knew then what you know now, would you still have invaded and occupied Iraq?" An even better question for Bush, "Why did you go out of your way to rush into Iraq, despite evidence that they were cooperating with UN weapons inspectors, were not a security threat to the US and had nothing to do with 9/11?
|
That said, the basic premise seems to be that Kerry has been inconsistent on his stance with Iraq. First he's for the war...then he's against the war....then he's for the war again. Wow! I'm thinking to myself. Is Kerry really that inconsistent? Could he possibly be that mixed up on what he believes in?
The vote that the GOP talk about is the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. It seems that this might be a good time to revisit this particular Resolution...just to refresh my memory.
In terms of force, Bush was authorized by Congress to:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. 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.
Interesting. So if Iraq is threatening the security of the United States, the President may use military force. Or if it's necessary to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions, the President may use military force.
The Resolution also says (also under Section 3):
b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(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) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
So if diplomacy isn't working to protect the security of the US, the President can use military force. If diplomacy won't get the UN Security Council Resolutions enforced, then the President can use military force. If there's a connection to 9/11, the President can use military force.
Makes sense to me. If there's a determination that any of this stuff is going on, military force seems justified. While I wouldn't have trusted Bush personally to be judicious with use of force in regard to Iraq...I can see why Kerry did. A US Senator wants to trust the Commander-In-Chief to do the right thing.
So let's break it down:
1. Did Iraq threaten the security of the United States? Nope. Nowhere has it been found anywhere that Iraq was a threat to US security. The lame attempts by Bush (yellowcake uranium, UAV's, etc) turned out to be completely untrue..and there's a good chance Bush's people knew it was untrue before they invaded. There was certainly plenty of intelligence out there to debunk Bush's claims when he made them.
2.Was military force necessary to enforce UN Security Council resolutions? Nope. The main UN resolution on the table was UN Security Council Resolution 1441(warning: PDF file). The Resolution essentially said that Iraq had to turn over all documentation on their weapons programs and weapons status. Iraq also had to allow UN weapons inspectors into the country and they had to be allowed unfettered access to whatever sites they wished to view. As it turns out, Iraq was cooperating with UN inspectors. It's likely that Saddam believed weapons had been destroyed. Hussein's scientists had been tricking him into thinking he had things he didn't have, too. Iraq probably did turn over all the documentation they had. But Bush and his people weren't careful and thorough enough to work with the UN and allow the inspectors to do their jobs. Without this careful and judicous use of power, there's no way we could have known these things.
3.Was Iraq connected in any way to the assault on the US on September 11? Nope. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11. Bush has said so himself on more than one occasion. No evidence exists that Hussein's regime had anything to do with 9/11.
What's curious here is...why are we asking Kerry about his vote? Why aren't we asking Bush, "If you knew then what you know now, would you still have invaded and occupied Iraq?" An even better question for Bush, "Why did you go out of your way to rush into Iraq, despite evidence that they were cooperating with UN weapons inspectors, were not a security threat to the US and had nothing to do with 9/11?
Return to Main
