Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Don't you agree that in hindsight Congress gave Bush too much authority? And given they did not really declare war that the wording of this resolution was too vague? And then how do you conclude there is no "etc." regarding this issue alone?
In my view of this Congress gave Bush an open ended opportunity to do whatever he wanted to do regarding the "Iraq threat". O.k., let's assume that was a mistake and Congress felt Bush lied and was abusing his open ended authority. What happened next? A series of funding authorizations, in spite of the rhetoric? At no time did Congress ever redefine Bush's authority, in spite of the rhetoric? At no time did Congress revoke the open ended authority, in spite of the rhetoric? At no time did Congress seriously take up the issue of impeachment for perceived crimes and abuses by Bush, in spite of the rhetoric? Perhaps, it is not that extreme to conclude the rhetoric is and was B.S.
|
I understand that in the ace gonzales interpretation of the AUMF, there is a pretense that critical phrase..."is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States"... does not exist or is open ended to give the president unlimited powers.
And I agree that for the first six years of those AUMFs, the Republican Congress completely abrogated its oversight responsibilities to ensure that Bush did not exceed the authority granted.
And I even agree that in the last 18 months, the Democrats have not acted as aggessively and thoroughly as they could have ..given that their hands were tied by the lack of cooperation by their Republican colleagues (blocking legislation) and the Bush administration (ignoring subpoenas)...and yet still exposed, and with the concurrence of the federal judiciary, prevented many of those abuses from continuing.