Dems as responsible for Iraq as Bush?

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
I did not quote the entire thing, of course, but the list of Whereases (which I trust you’ll admit defines intent) is focused primarily on that.
[/quote]
I’m going to use of a bit of technical lingo, so stay with me.

Whereases. Mean. Shit.

(There’s a very limited utility if courts wish to use explanatory statements to interpret Congress’ intent, but that has nothing to do with this point.)

Whereases are not binding upon the executive in any way, shape, or form.

Well, hell, nobody here is arguing it is a moral war. You’ll have to go over to that other thread by Chouan for that discussion. If the war is morally suspect, then of course the resolution is morally suspect, too. The fact is, it is a law, the law was followed, and the law is an ass.

And I respect elucidator’s efforts to make sense of all this, but ElvisL1ves is simply wrong on his facts and there’s no way to split the baby to make everyone happy when one viewpoint is without substance.

62

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
I’m going to use of a bit of technical lingo, so stay with me.

Whereases. Mean. Shit.

(There’s a very limited utility if courts wish to use explanatory statements to interpret Congress’ intent, but that has nothing to do with this point.)

Whereases are not binding upon the executive in any way, shape, or form.
[/quote]

Exactly. But even if they weren’t just basically a pre-amble, and if we should take them as binding, they still don’t say what **Elvis **is trying to make them say.

Congress supports ≠ Congress requires.

Thank-you.

63

Correct where wrong, but wasn’t the Bushivik argument against the Levin amendment that it was unnecessary? That the President was already committed to the notion of war as the last resort? Now, perhaps that means something dramaticly different than “exhaust all diplomacy”, but I fail to see it. Does the wording trump the meaning?

However you parse ambiguity, you cannot derive certainty. You seem determined to prove Elvis wrong, “it doesn’t say this, it doesn’t say that”. Well, of course not, it doesn’t really say much of anything. However much you may quote it as a rock-solid cite, it can’t prove any point. Yes, repeat, no.

64

From the [url=]White House, September 19, 2002:

Later (e.g., by 2004), the President characterized this vote as a vote for the Iraq war. So, basically, we have a President who was a lying sack of shit. That is the most important thing.

I agree with those who say that it was already obvious that the President was a lying sack of shit and thus it was stupid to give him what was essentially interpretable as a blank check.

However, one would hope that in the future, we would have a President who Congress could actually trust because he is not a lying sack of shit. Is that too much to hope for?

65

[QUOTE=vibrotronica]
If you weren’t on one of your little hiatuses, why was everyone welcoming you back?
[/quote]
I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood yourself. The part of your statement with which I took exception was that I “only came back to the board on the eve of war to argue some big time, libertarian bullshit weaseling”. Quite honestly, given your hysterical implosion and breakdown in this thread — in this forum — a brief hiatus might be a good idea for you to consider.

66

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
I’m going to use of a bit of technical lingo, so stay with me.
[/quote]
You’ve failed right from the get-go with that approach, friend. As already stated, this is a resolution about an allegedly-civilized nation going to war, and its reasons for doing so, and how it stands before the civilized world and before history. It is not a mere contract dispute which can be settled in court by lawyers dueling over how to parse language for the benefit of their particular client. It is about statecraft, and citizenship, and the ultimate question of basic human morality. Whatever else you have said that is nevertheless along lawyerly rather than moral lines has no import, however snarkily you may phrase it.

Nor does anything else, to this particular executive, as subsequent actions have made clear but which was not necessarily clear at the time. To those of us nonetheless persisting in taking the *meaning *, not just the letter, of the Constitution and our laws seriously, the contrary is true.

That also is untrue, if you count the assertions that we needed to do it for (insert long list of varying reasons) as having any moral basis. Or if you count simple self-defense as moral.

Indulging for the moment your desire to view this as described in my first paragraph above, I’ll ask you the same question Bricker steadfastly refuses to answer in similar circumstances: Is there or is there not, in your view, such a concept as the *spirit *of the law, distinct from and not necessarily congruent with the *letter *of the law?

67

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
You’re also ignoring the false pretenses problem, which, as I reminded John, is at the heart of the validity of any authorization based upon it. That’s *moral * validity we’re referring to.

This isn’t about finding some technical loophole that can be interpreted as justifying whatever one wants to do, it’s about war. In short, you too are reading it in a narrow, lawyerly way, not as a citizen or statesperson would and should.
[/QUOTE]

I may not be reading and interpreting this and other posts correctly, in which case you can correct me, but I must ask a question: do you believe the Democratic Party was tricked, fooled, or otherwise falsely led to believe Iraq was an imminent threat, had a nuclear weapons program, was in bed with the terrorists, or whatever other propaganda piece the Bush administration was throwing out there, and thus voted for the resolution with incorrect ideas in their head?

68

Not “The Democratic Party”, as you put it, but certainly many of its elected representatives were, and many of them have since admitted it. Republicans and others as well. Quite a few others kept their skepticism to themselves and placed their own fears of re-electability above the interests of the nation and even of civilization as well, likely hoping that a quick “victory” of some kind would bail them out.

That’s a pretty mainstream view, isn’t it? Now, why do you ask?

69

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Correct where wrong, but wasn’t the Bushivik argument against the Levin amendment that it was unnecessary?
[/quote]

I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that were so. I’m not sure how that changes what the AUMF says.

He may well have said that. But again, that doesn’t change what the AUMF says (or doesn’t say).

There is no ambiguity. The AUMF explicitly says that the president is the one who gets to decide when diplomacy has failed. It sets no standard, lists no requirements. There is nothing ambiguous about a blank check.

70

BTW, it wasn’t just the Levin amendment that was offered as a way to require more diplomatic efforts by Bush. From wikipedia:

71

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Not “The Democratic Party”, as you put it, but certainly many of its elected representatives were, and many of them have since admitted it. Republicans and others as well. Quite a few others kept their skepticism to themselves and placed their own fears of re-electability above the interests of the nation and even of civilization as well, likely hoping that a quick “victory” of some kind would bail them out.

That’s a pretty mainstream view, isn’t it?
[/quote]

First, I recommend Arthur Silber.

Second, does it bother you that such a large amount of supposedly intelligent and well connected people were not aware of what anyone who knows basic facts about the Middle East could and should know if they were to be making major policy decisions? As you implied, many grass root, low level Democratic voters understood what was going on, and they have jobs and no staff to help them. Plus, you know, all the intelligence going the other way.

Third, does it bother you that, charitably, the Democratic Party (that is, the leaders and the power brokers) are, by their own words, over the span of decades, very easy to “fool” into believing any propaganda from the state apparatus, so long as it leads to wars, interventions, and American hegemony? Or are they just really stupid? Given a couple years, is there really any doubt what the result for a bombing campaign over Iran would be as long as we could point to “scary intelligence”?

I thought these were pertinent questions, given the topic of Democratic compliance in wars of conquest. Especially given, going into the future, that Democrats will be the ones making the big moves and administrating those gigantic bases in the fertile crescent.

Also, I think you’re a smart guy. I’d like you to convert you over to the dark side (I believe Democratic partisans at Daily Kos and elsewhere refer to people like me as “defeatists” for not believing that their heroes are innocent cherubs who would never, ever profit from the war economy).

72

Not interested in candidates for sainthood. But if we can’t do better than this pack of lying jackals, we should ride the short bus to UN meetings.

73

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
You’ve failed right from the get-go with that approach, friend. As already stated, this is a resolution about an allegedly-civilized nation going to war, and its reasons for doing so, and how it stands before the civilized world and before history. It is not a mere contract dispute which can be settled in court by lawyers dueling over how to parse language for the benefit of their particular client. It is about statecraft, and citizenship, and the ultimate question of basic human morality. Whatever else you have said that is nevertheless along lawyerly rather than moral lines has no import, however snarkily you may phrase it.
[/quote]
Is this the long way of saying that the resolution should mean what you’d like it to, even if the resolution doesn’t say what you allege it does?

The spirit may matter if there’s a concrete difference between what Congress intended an ambiguous provision to be interpreted one way, but in exercise it is interpreted a different way. But the actual text still controls, and the spirit of the law cannot be fabricated to obviate the text. In this case, it is crystal clear that Congress approved a resolution that allowed Bush, or any other president who succeeds him, to alone determine when diplomatic efforts have failed, when force should be used against Iraq, and for how long. That is the plain text of the operative parts of the resolution (whereases of course being meaningless).

To have someone – John Kerry comes immediately to mind – say that they supported the resolution but think diplomacy should have been given more of a chance is irrelevant backside covering because they voted for a resolution that clearly and indisputably gave the president the sole discretion on when to begin the war and to make a legally unchallengeable determination of how much diplomacy was enough. The only real options to such comments (I supported the resolution because I was trying to avoid war through diplomacy) are that the person didn’t read the resolution, was a fool and didn’t understand it, or knowingly voted to give the president carte blanche to start a war but later regretted it.

The most basic premise of our country – and pretty much every other civilized countries – is that we live by the rule of law, even if it is bad law that should never have been approved. Moral indignation at the effects of a law are perfectly valid, but those beliefs don’t change the fact that the law is the law. We should use the ensuing embarrassment to change the law, for wishing bad laws out of existence (even if truth and justice are on your side) is simply not possible.

74

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
…The most basic premise of our country – and pretty much every other civilized countries – is that we live by the rule of law, even if it is bad law that should never have been approved…
[/QUOTE]

No, it isn’t. The most basic premises are those which the law is intended to protect, values that protect peace and human dignity. Values that are more basic than the law, you mistake the setting for the diamond.

An instrument like this, based on a tissue of lies and put forth to address problems that exist only in the fevered imaginations of the Bushiviks, does not deserve to be draped in such dignity, its a communion dress on a crack whore.

This thing was not a law so much as a crime masquerading as law.

75

[QUOTE=elucidator]
No, it isn’t. The most basic premises are those which the law is intended to protect, values that protect peace and human dignity. Values that are more basic than the law, you mistake the setting for the diamond.

An instrument like this, based on a tissue of lies and put forth to address problems that exist only in the fevered imaginations of the Bushiviks, does not deserve to be draped in such dignity, its a communion dress on a crack whore.

This thing was not a law so much as a crime masquerading as law.
[/QUOTE]

Well, regardless of what our “most basic premise is”, I’m at a loss to understand how that affects what the law says. If you chose to ignore a law because you find it morally objectionable, that’s certainly a defensible position. But that’s a different matter than claiming the law says something that it clearly doesn’t.

Again, you and I may wish the AUMF contained stronger language requiring diplomatic efforts. But that is not the law that Congress approved.

76

The reckless decision to invade Iraq ultimately rests with President Bush, but more importantly, the invasion of Iraq represents a complete failure in the U.S. system. The Pentagon pressured and confused the CIA. There is no doubt that Congress completely failed to function as crucial oversight, and the weak media failed to investigate and present any information about the alleged Iraqi threat.

77

[QUOTE=marshmallow]
does it bother you that such a large amount of supposedly intelligent and well connected people were not aware of what anyone who knows basic facts about the Middle East could and should know if they were to be making major policy decisions?
[/quote]
Of course it does. But even the most intelligent people are as capable as anyone else of being scared, or stampeded, or even craven. It isn’t lack of intelligence that bothers me, it’s lack of sense.

Tweet! Broad brush, five yards, loss of down. Even at the height of Cheney’s warmongering, the Democratic votes were roughly split, not monolithic as the Republican ones were and still are. Does it bother you that “The Republican Party” (in the manner you’ve chosen to phrase it) hasn’t realized what they’ve done yet?

They are. But, to borrow your brush for a moment, are you more “bothered” by “Democratic compliance” or Republican complicity?

78

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Is this the long way of saying that the resolution should mean what you’d like it to, even if the resolution doesn’t say what you allege it does?
[/quote]
Nope. Try again. The resolution means what it’s obviously intended to mean. Context matters. Context includes our basic humanity and the fundamental meaning of civilization.

Once again, this isn’t contract law, and it isn’t settled by grammatical parsing. It’s becoming frighteningly clear that you don’t even understand what the discussion is about.

Yep, that proves it. You do recognize that there is a “spirit of the law” but refuse to assign any importance or relevance to it.

So absolutely false that it’s almost futile even to try to explain “the basic premise of society” to someone holding the “good German” role up as the ideal, but here’s a try:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

That is what our particular version of civilized society holds as a basic premise. You will find “obey the law” in it nowhere. You *will * find “establish justice”, however. Or do you not understand the difference? :dubious:

John, perhaps *you * can try to redeem yourself and give it a try, if Ravenman cannot or will not.

79

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
John, perhaps *you * can try to redeem yourself and give it a try, if Ravenman cannot or will not.
[/QUOTE]

Here’s the thing, Elvis. I’m talking about what the law says. What is written down and recorded. If you want to discuss the “spirit of the law”, that’s a different matter. We started this discussion about what the AUMF said, and you implied that my understanding of the law was evidence that I hadn’t read it. Now you’ve moved the goalpost to talk about “context” and “spirit”. The thing is, there is no reason why you and I (or any two people) should necessarily come to the same conclusion about what the context implies or what the spirit is. You’re certainly going to get lots of disagreement between the various Senators on that issue. Unless you want to throw every law to the courts prior to the execution of the law, then all we’re left with is the plain text. And unless we sit down and have a lengthy discussion about this “context” and “spirit”, I think it’s extremely presumptive of you to imply that I’m ignorant of what the text of the law is simply because I disagree with you on what its “spirit” is.

So, no, I don’t see that the AUMF required Bush to exhaust all diplomatic efforts before using force. And if that’s what the Senators meant when they signed onto it, they were uncharacteristically silent when Bush didn’t do that. If there had been an uproar of disapproval in Jan/Feb of 2003 by Senators like Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards, then you might have a case to make. But I’m not aware of any protest from those folks until well after the invasion, and when things started turning sour.

As far as redeeming myself, well that just sounds like your way of saying that I have to agree with you. I don’t, and so I’ll remaining unredeemed and figure out some way to live with that. :wink:

80

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Here’s the thing, Elvis. I’m talking about what the law says. What is written down and recorded.
[/quote]
Nope, you still don’t get it. Try again.

Your dismissal of its own statements of purpose, both in the Whereases both you and Ravenman find so uncomfortable to discuss and in the portion of text itself which I quoted, is that evidence. It, along with your inanely repetitive “You’re funny” crack earlier, is further evidence that you do not wish to discuss the subject in anything resembling good faith, but merely have your heels dug in.
But try this thought experiment, if you will: Do you think a future historian, say a century from now, trying to understand the environment that created this war of aggression by a nation that had fancied itself the leader of civilization, and somehow stumbling upon this board’s archives (hey, it’s a thought experiment, bear with me), would find your comments enlightening in a way you’d like him to find them? Would they be evidence that Americans took their responsibilities as citizens of the nation and of the world seriously, or the converse? I’m quite comfortable as to how I’d answer that, but are you?