Reply #33: If so, then why did Bush ask for authorisation? [View All]

[Devils Advocate NZ]

And why does the resolution specifically claim to be authorisation for the use of force? Of course Kerry would try to deny his role in authorising the war, because now that the war has been PROVEN to be a war crime, he needs to distance himself from such charges.

It seems that many people have never read the Iraq resolution, nor have they read the War Powers resolution. Both of which make clear that a President is never authorised to make war unless there is a specific resolution that refers to itself as authorisation under the War Powers resolution.

The Constitution says that only Congress can declare war, and the War Powers resolution defines how that declaration must be made.

What Clinton did in Kosovo and Haiti before it was contrary to both the Constitution and the War Powers resolution. The fact that he was only reprimanded for Haiti and was given a pass on Kosovo does not mean that this did not occur.

What it means is that under Clinton, both the President and Congress ignored their Constitutional duties and breached the Constitution. It seems that Americans don't really care.

At least with Bush he followed the Constitution, but probably only because he knew that he could safely do so without fear of being denied authorisation.