Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I understand the differing roles of Congress and the President, thanks very much. I was awake most days during that class.
|
I recall that we both stayed awake for that class, but there was so much less constitutional law back then. But the analogy to what Clinton did has more to do with Bush's decision to seek a vote than with Kerry's vote on it.
Quote:
I am saying that Congress, including Kerry, should not have voted to authorize Bush to go to war if they knew there were no WMD and no al Qaeda connection. Because there was no reason to go to war, and therefore no reason to authorize it.
You seem to be treating the vote to authorize war as a mere formality, or a non-issue. Under your analysis, Congress could might as well authorize going to war against every country in the world tomorrow -- after all, it's the President's decision, right?
|
Given that we had been in a low-grade shooting war with Iraq for years, this situation was a little different. Once the President asks Congress for that authority, it's very hard for Congress to say now. That was part of Bush's reason for seeking the authority so far in advance of the war. He was saying, trust me. Given the circumstances, I find it tough to be too critical of Kerry.
That said, I agree that he is taking a political position, and I don't understand why he thought the vote would have been a good one had we known there were no WMD. In the end, though, it's a fairly stupid hypothetical question, and I'm just happy to see Kerry countering Bush's attack and turning the tables with more questions for Bush.
