Despite the lack of direct threats to the U.S. or links to Al-Qaeda, President Bush and his administration push for the war nonetheless. First were the war leaks, then Administration aides declare the war “inevitable,” and now Bush’s lawyers state he doesn’t need war authorization thanks to the 1991 Persian Gulf War Resolution.
The Persian Gulf War Authorization refers to Iraq’s aggression and attack on Kuwait. It also says all peaceful and diplomatic means must be exhausted. This is a sound basis to bypass the War Powers Resolution?
The president appears focused on War with Iraq, despite the universal international disapproval, lack of evidence or a direct attack, opposition from prominent Republican hawks and skipping entirely of the congressional War Powers Resolution.
The administration clearly lacks a statutory authorization, denies the need for approval from congress, and has not proffered evidence of a national emergency. On top of all this, the coming war on Iraq is poorly conceived with respecttoglobalreaction, and terrorist repercussions at home, and has neither the support of the military nor the U.N. arms inspectors. Isn’t it an indefensible outrage that certain members of our administration continue to call war “inevitable?”
This is less clear. Some links have been shown. Allegedly, al Qaeda is operating in Iraq right now.
Many in his administration are pushing for war, but Bush has not done so.
True.
I don’t think anyone in Bush’s administration made such a claim. His lawyer said that further authorization for an attack would be legal, not that it was desirable. IIRC Bush has said that before attacking Iraq he would consult with Congree and with our allies. If and when Bush flat-out asks for support from these two groups, I think he will get widespread support from them. We shall see.
Exactly why do you think they leaked this information to the public today? Because they didn’t want to lay the groundwork for going to war without consulting congress? The idea that Bush would stick to his word on this is incredibly naive. On top of this news, Cheney is now calling for a preemptive strike against Iraq, and Ari Fleisher nullifies the promise to ‘consult’ with congress here:
Yes, Bush had made that clear. He has also said again and again that he has not decided that war is the way to accomplish this. (However, I don’t see another way, so you have a point, AoS)
Maybe I misread the article, but I didn’t think they leaked it; I thought they announced it. Call me naive, but I thought they announced it now because Bush received the legal report now.
Did you mean to have a link to Fleisher’s statement? I’d like to see it in context. I, for one, will be disappointed if Bush fails to consult with Congress after promising to do so.
Okay, it’s not a leak, it’s worse, it’s a formal announcement – but you dodged the question – do you think this tightly run ship of an administration didn’t have a reason to announce this?
Just the fact that they were directed to research this tells you plenty.
Incidentally, the War Powers Resolution has never really been tested, and I seriously doubt it would hold up if we did in fact attack Iraq.
Congress’ only recourse would be to withhold funds sponsoring the war after 90 days, I believe. Unless you want to see Congressmen and Women hanging from the nearest lightpole, that will never happen.
Note that Bush is the Commander-In-Chief, and there is nothing specific in the Constitution that would prevent him from committing us to war.
-Dave, hoping we don’t go, but ready to go if we do.
As for a link to al-Qaida, The Telegraph is reporting today that Saddam had Abu Nidal killed because he refused to train al-Qaida fighters that have been collecting in Iraq. The article quoted administration officials as saying that a number of ‘high ranking’ al-Qaida operatives are now working out of Iraq.
What MeBuckner said; there’s a little thing called the constitution. I’m betting the president thinks like Airman Doors, though.
Sam Stone: Going to war on the word of anonymous “administration officials,” would be foolish in the extreme, even if they didn’t have an abysmal record of dishonesty and disingenuity. Are you saying it’s too much to ask to actually have evidence of the connections before we wage an unconstitutional war?
Well, according to one website I read regularly we’re going to attack sometime around November 5th. To paraphrase that’s the date when we can concentrate the most carrier power in the region, it’s also after the summer heat (a plus when you’re in your bio-chemical warfare gear) but before it gets too cold where it might impede diesel engines. It’s also early enough where we can be reasonably certain to have completed our objectives in time for Bush’s re-election. We’ve been building up to this for awhile now, constructing alternative bases of operation outside of Saudi Arabia and prepositioning equipment and fuel supplies. On a personal note a friend of mine in a unit that would be usefull to have over there was deployed about a month ago and told that he would be gone for about a year. It all makes sense to me, but then again misinformation is just that… maybe we’re just making Saddam sweat big time.
As for those Al-Queda/Iraq links let me again put up this excellent article in Time magazine throwing cold water on the whole thing. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020902-344044,00.html
What seems to be happening is Iraq hawks in the administration scraping at the bottom of the barrel and using friendly media outfits like the Telegraph to put out theories widely disbelieved by most of the intelligence establishment. The very fact that they have to resort to such tactics indicates the paucity of good arguments for an attack.
First of all, considering the current “I’m a patient man” rhetoric from inside the beltway, I doubt that any attack on Iraq is imminent.
Second of all, this may be a big hijack. My apologies. But since this is the third “Will we invade???” thread in as many days, what the heck.
And to the point : I can but stand in awe of how the national debate has suddenly become entirely Iraq. I mean, it’s just frigging amazing: every talk radio show, every front page, everyBig Debate has suddenly become “Iraq Iraq Iraq: Should We Invade??”
(OK, I’m exaggerating: every front page of the paper, every day isn’t about Iraq, but it is really starting to feel as if this were the case.)
So: look deeep into your crystal ball to, say, one month ago. I know it’s difficult. What was the Big National Debate around 7/26 a mere 30 or so days ago?
One Month Ago: the stock market is imploding, Bush and Cheney may (or may not) be Corporate Crooks, Something must be done!!!
Dick Chaney made a strong speech laying out the arguments for going to war with Iraq. Fox News played a substantial portion of it last night. It’s well-written and he delivered it well. I won’t attempt to summarize it in this post. The entire speech is here. Read it for yourself.
The other point is simply the fact that he gave this speech. The speech appears to be part of a campaign to promote a war. It also appears to be an effort to respond to arguments against war or for delaying war.
In any event, it can no longer be said that the Administration has not made a case for invading Iraq. You may not agree with their case, but at least they have made a case.
I am more and more thinking that Bush intended to go to war all along, and that his public position of not having made up his mind is some sort of theatrics.
December, it’s like the sun breaking through the clouds, isn’t it? These guys are all posturers – remember, it’s Bush who puts a happy spin on things and Cheney who outlines the policy, and drives the administration.
I don’t thing the case has been made. Here’s what the VP’s argument boils down to, stripped of the “Saddam is a very bad man” verbiage:
That sounds to me like “Why not start Wag the Dog II?”
I find Nicholas Kristof’s rebuttal quite devastating, particularly the points under:[ul]2. Will an invasion trigger chemical attacks instead of preventing them?
3. Do we have a plan for post-Saddam Iraq?
5. Will a war on Iraq set back the war on Terror?[/ul]And this final paragraph:
Um Cheney’s arguments are exceedingly weak so while he may be technically be"making a case" it is hardly a good one.
In addition to the important points mentioned in the Kristoff article which he largely ignores there is the following:
Cheney seems to admit that inspections were very successful in eliminating WMD the last time round but that there is no guarantee that they will work next time. But the problem is there is no guarantee that even a successful invasion will work either. After an invasion Iraq will be in chaos and it is likely that various rogue elements will try to grab the WMD either as a bargaining chip or to sell in the black market. There is absolutely no guarantee that the US army will in a chaotic,fast-moving situation be able to control the WMD. OTOH with inspections you have a body of specialist expertise with a track record and a reasonably stable situation in Iraq to ferret out WMD.
The bottom line is that even on the narrowest ground of controlling Iraq’s WMD there is no particular reason to believe that an invasion is better than inspections while on other grounds there are a huge number of military,economic and diplomatic problems associated with invasion and not with inspections.
Kristof has some good points, but I don’t find them as persuasive as you do.
I think it may well trigger chemical and/or biological attacks on Israel. But, that’s a reason to attack ASAP. If we wait, Saddam is apt to eventually attack Israel and with nuclear weapons – and threaten the rest of the world with them, too.
ISTM that some group is designing such plans. We ought to do so. However, just about any post-Saddam Iraq would probably be an improvement for the US, for the world and for the Iraqi people.
I think it will forward the war on terror, by letting other mideast states know that we’re serious. E.g., after a successful overthrow of Saddam, I think the Saudis will finally end their financial support for terror. They will not want to be on the wrong side.
“Saddam is apt to eventually attack Israel and with nuclear weapons – and threaten the rest of the world with them, too.”
This ignores the whole question of incentives. If Iraq is invaded Saddam has strong incentive to use WMD against Israel; if he is not invaded he has every incentive to restrain himself. When hawks say things like this they are in essence asserting that they think that Saddam is going to commit suicide by using nuclear weapons against Israel; a pretty extraordinary assertion for which they , as usual, provide no proof.
And of course all this begs the question why inspections aren’t sufficient to destroy Saddam’s nuclear ambitions like they did in the 90’s.
"However, just about any post-Saddam Iraq would probably be an improvement for the US, "
Yes this seems to be an article of faith among the hawks but it is highly dubious.
Question: if as seems eminently possible post-Saddam Iraq is in chaos and terrorists exploit this to steal or buy WMD would you say the world is better off?
Frankly a situation where Saddam is gone but where Al-Queda posseses much more WMD is a vastly more dangerous world for the simple reason that Al-Qaeda is much more difficult to deter than Saddam.
Here’s a must-read from an international law professor, Michael Byers. He talks about the Administration’s gaming of the various political systems that led us to this situation.