It Was a Blank Check

[clar]

I'm not posting this to bash anyone. But, it's important that we not revise history. Here's a tiny snip of what Senator Leahy said:


Today we are considering a resolution offered by Senator Lieberman to authorize the use of force. Article I of the Constitution gives the Congress the sole power to declare war. Yet instead of exercising this responsibility and voting up or down on a declaration of war, we have chosen to delegate this authority to the Executive Branch.
This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President "you decide." This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long.

[soleft]

1. When I read this in the resolution before it was passed -

and I'm paraphrasing

gives the President authority to use military force when HE DETERMINES that all other means have been exhausted



You knew then that there was no f*cking way any other means were even going to be considered. If anyone thought Bush would not go to war unless he had to - they're either idiots or liars, to us and themselves.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. the President can decide to use military force at ANYTIME he chooses

The President can decide to use force anytimes he feels it necessary. He only need report any action to congress within 48 hours. If the IRW were extra-constitutional then why did it have the same language in it for the 48 hour congressional notification?

[clar]

3. Please,

If you haven't read Leahy's speech, do. It explains things well.

[virtualobserver]

9. the difference is that Congress has gone on record.....

and specifically stated that whatever Bush decided in this instance, he could do.

and three things stand out in the IWR.

1. Its name --

It isn't called the "lets put pressure on Saddam" resolution.

the title is

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

2. Just in case you didn't get the point of the resolution from the title, it states its purpose....

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

3.Then it authorizes the President to do whatever he wants

(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.

If Bush had gone off on his own, we would not be having this conversation. Congress did give him a blank check.

[OrdinaryTa]

10. John Kerry Let Us Down

Instead of showing leadership against the war, Senator John Kerry joined with the Republicans in voting for it. It was a crushing disappointment at a time when we needed our leadership to unify in support of humane values.

Kerry didn't show any courage that day. He was more afraid of Republican disapproval than anything we Democrats might do to him. Kerry's supporters now tell us they are "tired" of being reminded of how Kerry let us down. Contrast their tiredness with the destruction and killing that the people of Iraq have endured.

Kerry supports violence as a way to solve political problems. He should withdraw his candidacy for the good of the party.

[bearfartinthewoods]

14. how fortunate that Kerry voted as he did.

it proved he was in step with more than 70% of dems and indies who supported the war.

[cosmicdot]

19. ... and, "leadership" is redefined

for political convenience ... conscience and integrity go out with the bath water ...

[Brucey]

4. Whether or not the resolution added any new powers,

it was a tacit approval of Bush's authority (and encouraged him) to go ahead as he pleased and saw fit. This is an eschewing of their responsibility, in my mind. I would prefer that the Congress deliberate and vote on such important matters as invading sovereign nations who pose no threat to us.

[Flying_Pig]

5. Word for word, no doubt scripted in the bowles of PNAC.....

AIPAC/Likud. Lieberman, though not listed as an actual member of PNAC, nonetheless subscribes to nearly all of its tenets, as do several other prominent Democrats (like Biden, Pelosi, Feinstein, and on, and on..). Of course, virtually the entire Republcian party is in line with PNAC precepts, as befits their passionate embrace of fascist Ari Sharon and his apartheid Likudniks.

This resolution was a betrayal of our Constitution, the people of this nation, the people of Iraq, and everything our democratic republic has stood for.

[Pepperbelly]

6. That whole resolution struck me ...

as an extra-constitutional procedure. I am not sure that Congress actually HAS the power to delegate away its power. Yet, they did and although this was the subject of litigation from some of our representatives and fellow citizens, the SC sided with that ability. Yet, no where in the constitution is this mentioned.

Does it not follow that the Presdient could delegate to Congress HIS authority or that the SC could delegate to the President THEIR authority. Sounds pretty silly when one looks at it that way. This was an egregious abdication of authority.

[clar]

7. LOL

It does sound funny when inverted. Never thought of it like that.

[EagleEye]

8. Congress' Power to Declare War

You are right. But every time it has been challenged in court (the only branch that has authority to hold it unconstitutional, the court has refused to hear the argument--no standing.

[ProfessorPlum]

11. Here's the thing

the IWR is definitely a piece of crap legislation. Probably unconstitutional, if we had an honest Supreme Court.

But remember, everyone - Congress is Republican. Of course a Republican Congress is going to give Smirky whatever he wants, if they can. The Democrats can only make the situation a little better where they can, but they didn't write the damn thing.

[quinnox]

12. That's the point always missing from these threads

Bush had the votes. The way these threads are presented it is implied that the Dem senators like Kerry, Edwards and others could have stopped the resolution. Nope, that simply isn't true.

Also, it was Bush's plan as you say, it wasn't the Dems plan.

[ProfessorPlum]

13. as it was Bush's plan

I think the smart thing for the Dems would have been to vote "No" and stick him with the consequences, good or bad, of his precious little war.

Any mildly good medium could have looked into the future and predicted that Bush would f*ck it up - it's what he's best at!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. pre 9/11 that would have been the story

but it was little more than 14 months after Bush's pearl harbor (Bush's NOT the rest of the sane world), so the political calculations were different.
Anyway, the POS legisaltion point you make is dead on. The IWR is a worthless piece of paper, except where Karl Rove was concerned.

[KoKo]

16. Lieberman, Kerry and Edwards didn't even vote for the amendments, that

would have modified the resolution. Many of our Dems put those amendments up and couldn't get the full Dem vote...That's what was sad

I think they knew they were running for President and therefore compromised feeling Bush was too strong because of the polling after 9/11. It was a political compromise which came back to haunt them.

In Kerry's case.....it hurt the most. He would have been an excellent candidate......but that vote cost him.....and I think it shows in the way he has run his campaign.

[KoKo]

15. Those of us who heard this speech and those of Robert Byrd trying to keep

us out of this Invasion....will never forget. Those of us here on DU who posted in ongoing threads what those two were saying in those magnificent speeches on the Senate floor and then heard amendment after amendment being shot down by both our Dems and the Repugs.....will never get over it. That's why I can't support anyone who voted for that resolution....

If you heard the speeches against going into Iraq spoken with such passion and the reasons (which the rest of the country is just finding out were true) you just know that vote was the day when you lost faith in America. I want my Country Back!

[GBD4]

18. Bob Graham's website

Bob Graham vehemently opposes blank checks, too! :)

www.stoptheblankchecks.com