The Erhart Blog

Easy> If you look at the law which authorized the war, you woiuld see that it made the war inevitable. See section authorizing the war if Saddam had not complied with "all relevant UN resolutions."

I suppose that someone who voted for this law could argue that he didn't understand this. Well, then we have somebody who was willing to vote away the constitutional authority of the US Congress to declare war without totally understanding what he was voting for. Such a person does not deserve to hold public office.

The Congress could easily have zauthorzed the president to make all n43cessary preparations for war, but return to Congress with his determinations to ask for a declaration. By writing the law the way they did, Congress accomplished two things:

1) They made the war inevitable;

2) The insulated themselves from criticism for the war they made inevitable.

In order for 2) to be true, they counted on the stupidity of the American people, who would ignore what they actually did.

Even given this truth, Congress still could have prevented the war. In the days just before it was launched, Robert Byrd rose in the Senate to urge the Congrewss to rescind the authorization. We know that he had enough fellow Democrats in the Senate to make going to war difficult. Some supported him. Those who did not can be truly said to have voted for the war.

As i said, no one who voted for the law making the war inevitable should ever hold public office again. It is up to you to deal with the Congressmen in your districts.

Averroes
 

Averroes,

I understand that the resolution made the conflict inevitable, but the idea that anyone who voted for the resolution cannot criticize the president's handling of it is silly. As I said above, the war was not the same thing in October 2002 as it is now. Giving the president the authorization to invade does not mean you must approve of every subsequent action and accept whatever shitty outcomes as part of what you voted for.
 

Curtis: "I understand that the resolution made the conflict inevitable, but the idea that anyone who voted for the resolution cannot criticize the president's handling of it is silly."

I totally agree, and have not said anythng to the contrary. The people who voted for the authorization certainly retain their fiorst amendment rights. What they have given up is any claim to cridability.

Say you give your 12 y/o an AK-47 and tell him that he should shoot anyone at his middle school who has whites in their eyes. Your only requirement is that he, within 48 hours, sends a communication to you stating his determination that said people did indeed have whites in their eyes.

Now, you certainly have not given up your right to criticize how he carried out the massacre of the students, faculty, and staff at the school. You might say, "I certainly didn't teach him to waste ammunition by emptying clips into already dead bodies. he has made this massacre mucyh more costly than it had to be. I certainly will not grant him the 87 dollors for continued operatins at the middle school. and another thing, I thought it was understood that his action would not be unilateral, but done with a broad coalition of students. Instead, it was done with a small "colalition of the coerced and bribed," students he paid or bullied into accompanying him. they did very little, and he is getting 90% of the blame. And I certainly expected that when he went to the schpool, he had some plan for disposing of the boies after the massacre. Oh, I know, I didn't actually say that when i authorized his use of force against those with whites in their eyes, but he certainly deserves my criticism now."

I'll bet that your candidacy for School Board President would not be helped by your criticism. Like Kerry, you would be saying, "Yeah, i would have massacred those people, but i would have done it better."

The authorization, voted into law, and voted for by both kerry and Edwards, tells the president that continued violation of UN resolutions is all that is necessary for the US to go to war, and they are so sure that war will happen that they do not even request a check back.
 

"Oh, I know, I didn't actually say that when i authorized his use of force against those with whites in their eyes, but he certainly deserves my criticism now."

I wrote about this in a post a short while ago, one which you were kind enough to respond to. Have you forgotten already? Here is what Kerry said when voting for the resolution.


Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

He did "actually say that" when he authorized the use of force.
 

Yes, Curtis, he did say that. But there are two relevant, vital points that you and the kerry sycophants refuse to acknowledge.

1) What kerry said on the side does not matter. What matters is what he voted for. If he wanted other things in the boill, he could have offered an amendment, or refused to vote for this one because it did not include thigs he thought should be included. it's not like he hasn't seen fit to do that at other times, when it was politically expedient. (see "87 billion.")

2) Bush actually fulfilled the things Kerry set out. Kerry did not say, for ijnstance, that Bush had to be successful in his attemp[t to work with the Security Council entirely. Unless you think kerry was saying that our national security is dependent on what the Security Council does.

And he did work with our allies. We found out that some of those countries we thought were allies were not. Again, kerry did not require in his remarks that we only use force if France used force with us. He said that we should endeavor to work with our allies, which Bush did. One can't hold Bush responsible for the duplicity and graft which drove France, Germany, and Russia to oppose the use of further threat. Especially when it is likely that if those three countries had stood with the US, and had not assured Saddam that the US would not attgack, Saddam would have backed down and allowed the inspectors full cooperation, avoiding the war.

Averroes
 

I don't know what "on the side" means. Can you clarify that? When is a Senator speaking "on the side" and when is he speaking "off the side", or "on the other side" or whatever the opposite of "on the side" means.

A Kerry sycophant? I hope you're not saying I'm one of those. Bush has been a enormous dissapointment to me, how does that make me a Kerry sycophant? Whatever....

Finally, France, Germany, and Russia were all acting in their national interest, which all countries can be relied upon to always do in all circumstances. Bush's failure was to negotiate the cooperation of these countries. Or at least to put in a serious effort. he rushed into this war, it even seemed to me at the time, but I was willing to give him some benefit of the doubt. In hindsight, it looks like there were almost certainly more effective ways of dealing with the threat posed by Hussein. Those poor choices of the president, along with many domestic policies I find occupying various points on the spectrum between venal and stupid, make Bush a failed president in my eyes, so he's got to go. Will Kerry do better? I have no idea. But I feel it is every American's responsibility to oust any office-holder who has disappointed him so gravely. If failure has no consequences, you only encourage more failure.
 

"Finally, France, Germany, and Russia were all acting in their national interest, which all countries can be relied upon to always do in all circumstances. Bush's failure was to negotiate the cooperation of these countries."

It is such ignorance that makes you seem unserious about things, Curis. As we suspected then, and as we now know, no amount of negotiation, even by john kerry, would have secured the cooperation of France and Germany, not China. To pretend otherwise for political gain is merely an out and out lie. Next we'll probably hear your crowd trot out the old standby, "the Republicans are going to cut your Social Security benefits." Naw. They wouldn't be that stupid and that dishonest, would they, Curtis?

Averroes
 

" don't know what "on the side" means. Can you clarify that? When is a Senator speaking "on the side" and when is he speaking "off the side", or "on the other side" or whatever the opposite of "on the side" means."

You know very well, but i'll play yopur game.

"on the side" means "not in the law." Kerry voted for a law that makes war inevitable, gives clear impetus for it. Then he comes out and "on the side" says that if Bush does this or doesn't do that, he will complain. The question is: if it was so important, why did he not work to get it in the law, or, failing that, vote against the law?

It's like voting for a law to take candy form babies and then saying, not in the bill but on the side, "if they take the candy without first asking the baby to sign an informed consent law, i will be the first to complain." It is merely dishonesty, playusable denieability, raised to a new and dangerous height.

" many domestic policies I find occupying various points on the spectrum between venal and stupid,"

NOW you're starting to sound loike a Libertarian. I agree. Increasing federal spending for education far beyond that of previous administrations, in support of a stupid program which imposes nationwide standards on the traditional local controllers of education policy is monstrous. Continuing funding for programs which have resulted in our air becoming cleaner--bizarre. Funing embryonic stem cell research in the facre of a large-scale moral outrage--irresponsible. Backing and signing the first medicare drug benefit--Democratic (in the party sense.) All of these measures do little more than expand the federal government, appeal to spedial interests, and cost the taxpayer zillions.

You, of course, will recommend a candidate to me who will reverse this trend to central government control and central government spending.
 

I think the best way to control spending now is divided government. I'm also interested in this "pay go" thing that Kerry's talking about. I think specific laws restricting deficit spending might be a good idea. But of course, as with all laws, the devil is in the details.

None of what you wrote really contradicts anything I've said, so I'll just thank you for your comments.