Please...

[edb1821]

All you Bush haters keep bringing up the point that he "forced the war" and decided to "go it alone" and that he did it without support.

Bullshit.

One man cannot declare war. The US needed the majority vote of congress in order to proceed - It happened.

The majority vote included one from your beloved flip-flopping candidate on the left who was in full support of the war until he decided to run for President and then realized the only way he could get votes would be to brainwash idiots into thinking the current Pres is doing something wrong.

Since then, he's changed his mind back and forth a few times, so who really knows what his opinion is.

The majority agreed to go into Iraq without the support of the UN. It wasn't the decision of one man.

Hindsight is 20/20. Anyone can look back and point out mistakes that have been made. A good candiate would outline a new, different plan that would yield results in Iraq and build support for it. Kerry can't do that, so he slings mud instead.

Kerry's plan to fix Iraq is weak. He claims he'll garner international support - HA! We tried that John - it didn't work. Let's see... in order to fix this problem, we should go back in time 2 years and repeat what we already tried. Do you honestly think Germany, France or any other country that opposes the Iraq war will change their decision because a pussy liberal takes over office? Hardly.

John Kerry will never win this election. Keep dreamin'.

[infidel]

You got it wrong.
Congress gave bush the authorization to go to war after diplomatic avenues were exhausted and allies were gathered if war became necessary.
Unless you've had your head where the sun doesn't shine you'd know that neither of these requirements were fulfilled.

[edb1821]

And which diplomatic avenues were not exhausted? Ever heard of Tony Blair?

[Whois]

1) Congress did not declare war, they authorized use of force (a bullshit legalism).

2) According to the Pentagon (DoD) we are not at war because Bush has failed to sign the necessary Executive Order.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html

Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 3, 2002

The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan.

Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today’s world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We’re still in Korea and we’re still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990.

The process by which we’ve entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress’ abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution.

Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from – rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution.

Controversial language is being hotly debated in an effort to satisfy political constituencies and for Congress to avoid responsibility of whether to go to war. So far the proposed resolution never mentions war, only empowering the President to use force at his will to bring about peace. Rather strange language indeed!

A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice.

However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the UN and all our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the UN, an un-elected international government. No wonder the language of the resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting this war by citing UN Resolutions.

In order to get more of what we want from the United Nations, we rejoined UNESCO, which Ronald Reagan had bravely gotten us out of, and promised millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer support to run this international agency started by Sir Julian Huxley. In addition, we read of promises by our administration that once we control Iraqi oil, it will be available for allies like France and Russia, who have been reluctant to join our efforts.

What a difference from the days when a declaration of war was clean and precise and accomplished by a responsible Congress and an informed people!

A great irony of all this is that the United Nations Charter doesn’t permit declaring war, especially against a nation that has been in a state of peace for 12 years. The UN can only declare peace. Remember, it wasn’t a war in Korea; it was only a police action to bring about peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam there was fighting going on, so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today regarding Iraq. Since Iraq doesn’t even have an Air Force or a Navy, is incapable of waging a war, and remains defenseless against the overwhelming powers of the United States and the British, it’s difficult to claim that we’re going into Iraq to restore peace.

History will eventually show that if we launch this attack the real victims will be the innocent Iraqi civilians who despise Saddam Hussein and are terrified of the coming bombs that will destroy their cities.

The greatest beneficiaries of the attack may well be Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda. Some in the media have already suggested that the al Qaeda may be encouraging the whole event. Unintended consequences will occur – what will come from this attack is still entirely unknown.

It’s a well-known fact that the al Qaeda are not allies of Saddam Hussein and despise the secularization and partial westernization of Iraqi culture. They would welcome the chaos that’s about to come. This will give them a chance to influence post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The attack, many believe, will confirm to the Arab world that indeed the Christian West has once again attacked the Muslim East, providing radical fundamentalists a tremendous boost for recruitment.

An up or down vote on declaring war against Iraq would not pass the Congress, and the President has no intention of asking for it. This is unfortunate, because if the process were carried out in a constitutional fashion, the American people and the U.S. Congress would vote "No" on assuming responsibility for this war.

Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the UN Charter, which replaces the Article I, Section 8 war power provision, is about as close to 1984 "newspeak" that we will ever get in the real world.

Not only is it sad that we have gone so far astray from our Constitution, but it’s also dangerous for world peace and threatens our liberties here at home.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

[infidel]

And which diplomatic avenues were not exhausted? Ever heard of Tony Blair?

The UN weapons inspectors who till this day say are correct in claiming that Iraq possessed no WMDs were forced to leave before the US invasion or risk death/injury.
Doesn't sound very exhausted to me.

If the US would have proved to the UN and other countries that there was a threat from Iraq we wouldn't be going at it basically alone. Problem is the US could have never proved there was a threat since none existed and much of the rest of the world realized it.

[Echewta]

I do agree that Congress wussed out and gave Bush the go ahead to use military force knowing he probably would. But the country was on psycho god bless america kill everyone mode. Voting no would have been political suicide and we all know its about the votes, not the people.

[D_Raay]

All you Bush haters keep bringing up the point that he "forced the war" and decided to "go it alone" and that he did it without support.
This is in fact true. You are in over your head here. Congress authorized the use of force ONLY when other avenues were exhausted. How soon you forget apparently. Don't you remember all the clamoring for giving the inspectors more time to do their work? They hadn't found anything yet. Turns out now they never would. So we went to war under false pretenses and changed the reasoning time and time again when one reaon after another was proven false. Come on don't be such a moron. Would you let someone you knew manipulate you like this? Let me guess, you probably would considering your inability to not be swayed by bullshit. The UN has declared this war ILLEGAL in case you hadn't noticed that either.
Ever heard of Tony Blair?
The same Tony Blair who told the british people that Saddam could hit them in 45 minutes you mean? That was based on a "sexed" up document ? Which also turned out to be a load of bullshit. The same Tony Blair who is now distancing himself from Bush and his cronies for fear of his political life? The same Tony Blair that faces a possible impeachment?

[Ace42]

One man cannot declare war. The US needed the majority vote of congress in order to proceed - It happened.

11. President Bush usurped the Constitutional power of Congress as a means of securing power to commit crimes against peace, war crimes, and other high crimes.

President Bush intentionally usurped Congressional power, ignored its authority, and failed and refused to consult with the Congress. He deliberately misled, deceived, concealed and made false representations to the Congress to prevent its free deliberation and informed exercise of legislature power. President Bush individually ordered a naval blockade against Iraq, itself an act of war. He switched U.S. forces from a wholly defensive position and capability to an offensive capacity for aggression against Iraq without consultation with and contrary to assurances given to the Congress. He secured legislation approving enforcement of UN resolutions vesting absolute discretion in any nation, providing no guidelines and requiring no reporting to the UN, knowing he intended to destroy the ammed forces and civilian economy of Iraq. Those acts were undertaken to enable him to commit crimes against peace and war crimes.

The conduct violates the Constitution and laws of the United States, all committed to engage in the other impeachable offenses set forth in this Complaint.

http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm#11

Bush's daddy managed to declare war alone without a majority vote of congress. So yeah, one man can declare war.

Hindsight is 20/20. Anyone can look back and point out mistakes that have been made

The most interesting feature of the debate over the Iraq crisis is that it never took place. True, many words flowed, and there was dispute about how to proceed. But discussion kept within rigid bounds that excluded the obvious answer: the U.S. and UK should act in accord with their laws and treaty obligations.

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9804-rogue.html

The first time around, when there was more international support for the war, any criticism of the obvious flaws and illegalities was supressed, ignored, or ridiculed (hence you not being aquainted with the facts) - it is not a case of hindsight, lot's of people saw this coming. But, nobody listened.

You are right about Kerry (sort of) though:
Senator John Kerry added that it would be "legitimate" for the U.S. to invade Iraq outright if Saddam "remains obdurate and in violation of the United Nations resolutions, and in a position of threat to the world community," whether the Security Council so determines or not. Such unilateral U.S. action would be "within the framework of international law," as Kerry conceives it. A liberal dove who reached national prominence as an opponent of the Vietnam War, Kerry explained that his current stand was consistent with his earlier views. Vietnam taught him that the force should be used only if the objective is "achievable and it meets the needs of your country." Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait was therefore wrong for only one reason: it was not "achievable," as matters turned out.

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9804-rogue.html