Selective Memory

[BT]

<a href="http://www.debategate.com/media/iraq_player.swf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.debategate.com/media/iraq_player.swf</a>

[domer]

Rhetoric to drive a tough policy is different from the solemn duty -- the sacred duty -- to decide between peace and war in only the most exacting terms. As they say, war should be a last resort, a situation none of those speakers faced in the Middle East but which Bush waltzed to on no more than the exhortations of neo-cons, or so it seems. And this gives him the benefit of the doubt regarding his own (culpable?) intent.

[BT]

You give these folks a pass because it wasn't their decision to make?

Nonsense.

They made it when they authorized the war.

[domer]

The war resolution was an AUTHORIZATION NOT A MANDATE. Going to war was explicitly left in the president's discretion, which had to be exercised within both foreign and domestic law. Bush got it wrong. The war-authorizers regret their vote. Live with it.

[BT]

One would think when the house and senate exercises their constitutional obligations in authorizing war they do due diligence when performing that function. They can't rewrite history on the fly.

BTW no one has claimed that the  authorization was a mandate. But it certainly was confirmation that the vast majority agreed with that approach.

And they will have to live with their words and actions.

[sirs]

I meant to mention this earlier,.... good original posting, Bt       

[Xavier_Onassis]

BTW no one has claimed that the  authorization was a mandate. But it certainly was confirmation that the vast majority agreed with that approach.

=========================================
If the approach was to actually make a real threat against Saddam that he COULD be invaded.

There is a clear difference between pointing a weapon at a malefactor and firing it.

The Congress approving the resolution was simply LOADING the gun. Juniorbush then FIRED it. Bad move, since he was clueless as to a plan and a departure strategy.

And he's mostly to blame here, because he pulled the trigger.
At most the Congressmen who voted to declare war are accessories to the crime.

----------------------------
Anyone who understood Saddam (and this does not seem to have included the Congress) should have known that he was unlikely to respond to this sort of threat. Like Hitler, he was ruthless, but brave and not easily intimidated, like Cedras in Haiti, or the Indonesians in East Timor.

[Plane]

Rhetoric to drive a tough policy is different from the solemn duty -- the sacred duty -- to decide between peace and war in only the most exacting terms. As they say, war should be a last resort, a situation none of those speakers faced in the Middle East but which Bush waltzed to on no more than the exhortations of neo-cons, or so it seems. And this gives him the benefit of the doubt regarding his own (culpable?) intent.

Neither the President , the Congress nor the Supreme Court has the power to deny a state of war that is thrust upon us from without.Thay is why we are at war with Al Quieda.

The war with Saddam Hussein was in progress for more than ten years , it could have been ended with a withdrawal or with a re-invasion to bring about a conclusion.

Why would it have been better to preserve a status quo of ongoing low level war ?

Or why would it have been better to hand Saddam an unearned vctory?

Why do we assume that Al Queda would haveremained uninvolved in Iraq n either of these two cases?


I think that the case is incompletely made o simply deplore the bad situation and the waye came to it , to complete the case it needs to be shown how one of the other avalible choices would not have led us to the same pass or worse.