Would Congress Have Declared War?

We have debated endlessly here the whole issue of WMD's and the President's possible personal interests in a war with Iraq. But one thing we haven't really debated is whether Congress would have declared the war on Iraq had they been given evidence to review and then make the decision themselves.

In October 2002, Bush asked the Congress to pass a resolution granting him the authorization to determine when and if we should attack Iraq. Mind you, he asked this just a few weeks before elections, when everyone would be distracted.

The Constitution expressly states that it is the Congress who can declare war, not the president. As I read it, it is not a decision that Congress can simply choose to pass off to the President.

So, the Congress passed Bush's resolution, since it was something that would allow him to make that call if he had to at a later date.

Then, of course, we all remember early 2003, when it was all down to "what's Bush going to decide to do?" He had his evidence that he kept to his trusted advisors and himself. Evidence, by the way, that we have yet to see even to this day.

What if we had, according to the Constitution, left it up to Congress to declare war on Iraq? What if the administration had been forced to make a justifiable case to them?

And then what if Congress had decided that the evidence was sufficient, and they had elected to declare war? Would we even be having this debate about Bush's justifications for Iraq right now, since those justifications would already have been reviewed?

Just some thoughts I've had lately. A few guys I work with have been reading a lot of stuff that's led to this in our discussions, and I wanted to hear the thoughts from the rest of you.

Mind you, he asked this just a few weeks before elections, when everyone would be distracted.

Darn these world events, intruding on my re-election campaign!

Yes, but in doing so near the end of the Congressional Session, it limited the debate to about two days.

Yup, two days to debate something that would set a congressional precedent in delegating powers clearly delineated by the Constitution as belonging to the Congress and only the Congress.

Actually Bush already had a blank check resolution from shortly after 9/11. The new resolution was demanded by the Democrat leadership, so if they don''t like the timing they have no one to blame but themselves.

I understand Constitutional concerns, but seeing as how the current test for Constitutionality seems to be ""It doesn''t say we CAN''T do it"", I''ve been finding it hard to know where to start.

I understand Constitutional concerns, but seeing as how the current test for Constitutionality seems to be ""It doesn''t say we CAN''T do it"", I''ve been finding it hard to know where to start.

True, but unlike a lot of the current things they try to push on the standing that the Constitution doesn''t say they can''t (gay marriage, for example), the ""founding fathers"" have many written statements noting why they explicitly gave the powers for declaring war to the Congress alone.

"Farscry" wrote:

As I read it, it is not a decision that Congress can simply choose to pass off to the President.

But they didn''t. Congress made this decision, by passing the joint resolution authorizing force.

The Constitution expressly states that it is the Congress who can declare war, not the president.

True, but we have gone to war many times without formal declaration. The Supreme Court has upheld that only Congress has this authority, but that congressional resolutions are valid authorizations for force. Also, Congress passed the War Powers Act, which both recognizes the President''s authority to initiate conflict and requires him to obtain approval for ongoing conflicts.

What if we had, according to the Constitution, left it up to Congress to declare war on Iraq? What if the administration had been forced to make a justifiable case to them?

He did make the case for war to Congress - and those congressmen with apppropriate clearance (which is a lot o them) saw the exact same intelligence that had been presented to the president. Also, the resolution may have only been debated for two days, but there were weeks of debate befor the resolution itself was drafted into a form that could be voted on...

My point is that the Congress did declare war in all but name. And history and legal precedent makes an actual declaration of war no different than the type of resolution authorizing force created here. It is a difference of semantics only.

I guess it just bothers me that Congress essentially voted ""hey, let''s just let Bush decide whether or not to go to war if he feels that the peace process isn''t working.""

I think that when the time came in February of last year, when it came down to the final days and the evidence had been collated, it should have been presented to Congress for them to decide whether to declare war at that time.

That''s the difference between a president and a dictator: the president has to get approval for any actions that draw our nation into a conflict and use our resources, especially our brave men and women who do the dying. The dictator just says ""go.""

Note of clarification there: I''m not accusing Bush of being the dictator. I''m blaming the Congress for giving him the opportunity to act like one.

I''m blaming the Congress for giving him the opportunity to act like one.

But you realize that the part about Congress giving him the opportunity means that he couldn''t just say ""go"" - he had to get authorization from Congress first. Congress could have said no to the whole thing.

But you realize that the part about Congress giving him the opportunity means that he couldn''t just say ""go"" - he had to get authorization from Congress first. Congress could have said no to the whole thing.

I know, I know... I realize it''s somewhat of a semantics thing, like you said. But remember, sometimes I''m a semantics whore.

I guess it just bothers me that Congress essentially voted ""hey, let''s just let Bush decide whether or not to go to war if he feels that the peace process isn''t working.""

I think that the last time that the Congress
declared war was in WWII. Every other time
has been initiated by the President, or referred
to as a police action or similar. Someone
correct me if I''m wrong.

What bothers me is that some of the Congress-
critters that were shown the data say that they
were given a much stronger story than was
later claimed. That is, they feel they were
misled.

Unfortunately, the days where Congress was
required for declaring war are essentially over.
Perhaps it''s an appropriate change in some
scenarios, given the speed of modern conflict,
but with months of national debate, it would
seem to have been worth doing. Instead, we
got a half-baked ""make your own choice and
leave us out, but in return talk to the UN"" out
of it. And then the threats to make the UN
irrelevant, and arm-twisting that resulted in
the UN saying ""Yeah, sure, just leave us out of
it too"".

There was a lot of motivation to get this war
done on the part of the White House; nothing
in the evidence so far explains *why*, and that
is disturbing. It''s all a retreat to moral
considerations that reduce to ""why Iraq, and
why now?"" - and again, no clear answer as to
why Iraq and not any of the world''s other
dictatorships. Thus, conspiracy theories
abound.

I''d like to find out what the real reason was,
someday, but now we know that accountability
is not part of the President''s mandate. Oh well.
If that holds up, it''ll be useful when the change
comes, I guess, although I can''t help thinking
that it is corrupting all around. Secrecy is not
the best policy for leaders in a democracy.

Robear

Unfortunately, the days where Congress was
required for declaring war are essentially over.

That''s simply not true. The president as Commander in Chief can initiate a conflict, but he has to obtain Congressional approval or it will be shut down.

nothing in the evidence so far explains *why*, and that is disturbing

No, what you really mean is that nothing in the evidence has convinced you, because you are seeking some nefarious motivation. Which is remarkable to me, as you have even conceded that Bush believed the intel about Iraq''s likely WMD programs and capabilities. You claim not to know the case (and then chastise other people for not reading the paper - incredible). For your edification, here it is one more time:

1) Saddam had successfully hidden banned weapons for years from UN inspectors in the 1990''s usually until lucky breaks, not caused by any actions from the inspectors, would reveal a program much farther along than we knew.
2) Saddam might as well be insane for the poor judgement calls he has made (not getting out of Kuwait when we were about to hit him, trying to assassinate a US president).
3) We know Saddam hates the US and blames us for his fall from potential greatness.
4) Right up until the war, our intel told us Saddam still had WMDs and connections to terrorists.

There is no other conclusion to be drawn from that evidence other than Saddam could not be disarmed through inspections. Also, his poor judgement and hatred of the US meant that he probably would not have realized or cared about the consequences of working with terrorists to strike directly at the US or its interests. And after 9/11 our patience for ambiguity on this matter was 100% gone.

You ask, why Saddam and why not other dictators? Perhaps you don''t remember this, but the reason we were enforcing sanctions and inspections was that Saddam invaded Kuwait and agreed to disarm and stop consorting with terrorists as a condition of cease-fire. He didn''t do either of these. Under UN resolutions, we had the legal authority and obligation to enforce these conditions. Saddam didn''t live up to them, and lost his right to be at peace. This situation doesn''t apply to ""other dictators"" I am aware of...

Again, there is plenty of explanation, and I doubt you aren''t aware of it. The fact that you stipulate that you believe the president saw Iraq as a threat but still claim ""no clear answer"" strikes me as odd.

Given that Saddam had never been disarmed by 12 years of inspections, and the entire UN security council agreed that he had to be disarmed, what should we have done?

Instead, we
got a half-baked ""make your own choice and
leave us out, but in return talk to the UN"" out
of it. And then the threats to make the UN
irrelevant, and arm-twisting that resulted in
the UN saying ""Yeah, sure, just leave us out of
it too"".

The UN has made itself irrelevant. They make resolutions and never enforce them. The US gave them a chance to show they weren''t , and they didn''t take it.

That''s simply not true. The president as Commander in Chief can initiate a conflict, but he has to obtain Congressional approval or it will be shut down.

It is true that Congress is no longer needed to declare a war. Your clarification is correct, but has nothing to do with my statement.

No, what you really mean is that nothing in the evidence has convinced you, because you are seeking some nefarious motivation. Which is remarkable to me, as you have even conceded that Bush believed the intel about Iraq''s likely WMD programs and capabilities. You claim not to know the case (and then chastise other people for not reading the paper - incredible).

Well, then, logic (and me) tell you that I am NOT seeking some *nefarious* interpretation. Why do you keep building these assumptions?

Where did I chastise people for not reading the paper? Maybe I forgot that.

There is no other conclusion to be drawn from that evidence other than Saddam could not be disarmed through inspections.

Oh, come on, I drew other conclusions. I gave reasons for them, and even admitted the limits of my reasoning. So why the ""no other conclusions"" bit? It''s like saying ""You can''t have another opinion"". I mean, think about it.

You ask, why Saddam and why not other dictators? Perhaps you don''t remember this, but the reason we were enforcing sanctions and inspections was that Saddam invaded Kuwait and agreed to disarm and stop consorting with terrorists as a condition of cease-fire. He didn''t do either of these. Under UN resolutions, we had the legal authority and obligation to enforce these conditions. Saddam didn''t live up to them, and lost his right to be at peace. This situation doesn''t apply to ""other dictators"" I am aware of...

This does not refer to the moral argument that is currently being used, which does not reference 1441 but instead refers to injustices which occur in other countries all the time. The criteria for selecting Iraq as a moral target exist all over the world, and we have not made clear why Iraq rated the invasion, in light of problems with the other evidence.

I''m sure you know that we maintained the aerial patrols of Iraq without UN permission, right? So we violated UN rules for a decade, and now we stand by them for justification? That''s, um, moral relativism at it''s best, unfortunately. And that''s the trouble I have with the moral argument.

Given that Saddam had never been disarmed by 12 years of inspections, and the entire UN security council agreed that he had to be disarmed, what should we have done?

Put simply, the evidence shows that he was disarmed, so I''m not sure how the question applies. I mean, you keep ignoring that fact - we haven''t found the stuff that justified the imminent threat statements, and there''s a real problem with the moral case. In light of that, I have to wonder what the President thought at the time, and what motivated him in the multi-year maneuvering to war. I don''t think we have anything like the full story yet.

Why is that so unreasonable?

Robear

The UN has made itself irrelevant. They make resolutions and never enforce them.

So, the next step is to give them an army, for enforcement? Or, maybe, do they depend on members to work things out - like they did with the Iraq war?

I''m not at all sure the UN should have an offensive military capability.

And as for irrelevant... Why are we trying to get them involved in Iraq again? Surely that means they are relevant to the effort?

Robear

This does not refer to the moral argument that is currently being used, which does not reference 1441 but instead refers to injustices which occur in other countries all the time.

I don''t get this. So every time someone says that Saddam was a bad guy who deserved to go, they also have to add the disclaimer that he was a special case? Can''t you just remember that on your own?

Put simply, the evidence shows that he was disarmed

So by applying what you think you know now (that there are no WMDs), you are able to dismiss the evidence that showed the opposite when the actual decision was being made? Interesting logic.

They made resolutions for 12 years. If they have no way or will to enforce resolutions why bother making them?

This whole series of discussions seems right out of the Twilight Zone to me. The intelligence departments of multiple world-leading nations predict WMD''s in Iraq and when they aren''t found, immediately the naysayers (who were presumably using a more reliable information gathering system like numerology or perhaps remote viewing) jump in and start demanding to know how intel could have failed so miserably. The real question ought to be ""Where are the WMD''s if they are no longer in Iraq?"".

If they have no way or will to enforce resolutions why bother making them?

Because talking things out and making resolutions is preferable to war? The UN is based on the idea that diplomacy is to be encouraged.

The real question ought to be ""Where are the WMD''s if they are no longer in Iraq?"".

The Twilight Zone part, for me, is ""why are there no other questions possible""?

Why were the naysayers not simply using the same information available, but drawing different conclusions? Wouldn''t that be a simpler conclusion than assuming they simply waved hands to invent their conclusions?

Robear

The trouble is nobody seems to be asking my question. Everyone is asking yours instead.

I don''t get this. So every time someone says that Saddam was a bad guy who deserved to go, they also have to add the disclaimer that he was a special case? Can''t you just remember that on your own?

It''s situational ethics. That''s not compatible with an argument that we acted out of a sense of moral obligation, because if he''s a special case, then the moral obligation is not based on an absolute morality. That''s Realpolitik; in that case, the assertion of morality is cynical, and even unnecessary.

So by applying what you think you know now (that there are no WMDs), you are able to dismiss the evidence that showed the opposite when the actual decision was being made? Interesting logic.

Not at all. I doubted it then, that''s the key. (I think dismiss is too strong a word, and implies a lack of thought.) I have not believed Bush''s or Blair''s assertions; I already explained why. I''m continuing a view I''ve held since well before the war. I''m standing up for my views, in other words,
in the danger of looking like a real idiot if tons of weapons start showing up. Isn''t that the right thing to do? Defend my beliefs?

Rantage (geez, I HOPE it was Rantage!) showed me some good evidence that leads me to question part of my stance, but misinterpreting what I say is not convincing.

Robear

The trouble is nobody seems to be asking my question. Everyone is asking yours instead.

Hmmm. Good point.

It''s interesting that Condoleeza Rice dismissed the idea a few weeks back. Perhaps that''s why? Or will there be an ""October Surprise""?

I think it''s being researched, from what I''ve seen in the press. And that''s a good thing. I just don''t think it''s the only possible thing to consider.

Robear

It''s interesting that Condoleeza Rice dismissed the idea a few weeks back.

I find that worrying. How could someone simply brush this aside as though it was utterly impossible? This raises a lot more red flags to me than anything else I have heard. Though I will have to look into the exact wording to make sure I find it to be a complete dismissal.

I was surprised by it too, Gorack. While I don''t think it''s likely - I think we''d have violated Syrian airspace to nail any such convoy - it is possible.

I think if we thought it was a real possibility, we''d be much more aggressive against Syria in the press, at a minimum, to prepare people for an action.

Robear

That''s not compatible with an argument that we acted out of a sense of moral obligation

We never said we acted solely out of a sense of moral obligation. But there is nothing inconsistent about defending our interests in an action that also happen to be just... Given that many of our military actions are one or the other, it is pleasant to have one that was both moral and strategic.

I''m not sure what you are arguing. The liberation of Iraq was just, based on the humanitarian situation alone. It doesn''t become less just if we had multiple reasons for prosecuting it.

"Robear" wrote:

I was surprised by it too, Gorack. While I don''t think it''s likely - I think we''d have violated Syrian airspace to nail any such convoy - it is possible.

Kepp in mind that David Kay, the person you and others are relying upon for your ""We were right all along"" attitiude, believes that Saddam sent WMD materials to Syria... Hopefully you aren''t ""cherry-picking"" the basis for your opinions.

I''m not sure what you are arguing.

Strip away the ""clear and present danger"", and the moral story for invading Iraq is based on situational ethics - our humanitarian concerns extend only to the oppressed country that is most likely to benefit us if we take it over and do it right. While a laudable piece of Realpolitik, it''s not a viable moral argument.

And no, I''m not cherrypicking, I''ve presented my thinking and it''s based on a lot more than Mr. Kay''s report.

Robear

Strip away the ""clear and present danger"", and the moral story for invading Iraq is based on situational ethics - our humanitarian concerns extend only to the oppressed country that is most likely to benefit us if we take it over and do it right.

First of all, as much as you would like to ""strip away"" significant portions for the cause for war, that wasn''t how the decision was made. Secondly, I''m not sure what world you live in, but almost all moral decisions have a situational component in them. For example: I think it is wrong for someone to beat their wife. If that wife is my sister, I''m sure as hell going to take action. Even if the wife is a stranger, I would probably do something for my neighbor in that situation. But I''m not going to go around town and try to help every battered wife. And I''m probably not going to act if the wife-beater has a gun and threatens my children with it if I don''t butt out.

My inability or unwillingess to act in every situation doesn''t make it any less just that I acted morally when I could. The same is true of the administration.