Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
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.
|
You call my interpretation of the AUMF and events surrounding the AUMF pretense, when it is not. Here is a short recap of my interpretation for the record.
Congress gave the President authority to use the military against the "Iraq threat". Republicans and Democrats supported the authorization. Congress had a major responsibility to understand all the issues prior to giving the President the authority to wage war. Saying the President lied or that he exaggerated is not justification for them not fulfilling their responsibility.
The authority given to the President was not a formal declaration of war but was the equivalent to a declaration of war in my view. The President was given open ended authority to use the military as he saw fit, his judgment. This in my view gave him the same power a President would have when war is formally declared. Congress with power of the purse, further validated the actions and judgments made by the President. Minority party or not, each vote on the Iraq invasion, occupation, and democratization mattered. Under no circumstances can I accept member of Congress being unclear on the issue of waging an offensive war.
Congress created a constitutionally vague situation by not formally declaring war, and giving Bush "war" authority in a manner that was not specific.
Bush used his judgment and in some cases tested the limits of his authority as laid out by Congress.
As is appropriate when there is a dispute between branches of government or when laws are unclear, the judicial branch was called in to clarify issues in question. I see this as a normal part of our government working. There have always been power struggles between governmental branches and there will be in the future. I don't think this means Bush acts unilaterally or makes him the most corrupt/worst President in our history. If there are issues not being resolved, it is a failing on the part of Congress. Congress has a responsibility to check the President. We can agree or disagree on the decisions and judgments made by the President, but I do not fault the President for making decisions and exercising his judgment in accordance with the power given to him by Congress. Talking about how he is abusing power while not doing anything about it is inexcusable.
I think there are lessons Congress can learn from what has happened over the past 7 years, other than simply saying the minority party had no choice, they had to compromise, they were forced, or that they simply were not as aggressive as I would have been.
In my view these are very real issues and very real lessons are to be learned. However, that assumes I give Democrats the benefit of believing that they are interested in understanding how they failed. I actually doubt Democrats in Congress believe Bush's judgments and actions were that far off of the mark.