Quote:
Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Ah, the business judgment rule rears its ugly head. Is that really your argument, that Kerry is contradicting his prior vote because the requirement of the president to report back as to how he used the authority means nothing? Where I come from, words have meaning, esp in a fairly short piece of legislation like this one. At the very least it shows someone among the drafters was interested in making sure the discretion was used in the right way, contrary to Burger's post about how nothing was done to fetter the authority.
|
As you say, words have meaning. If they wanted something more they should have included it in the resolution. All the resolution requires is for him to "make available" his "determination," whatever that means.
Incidently, I'm sure you realize that this garbaly goop is not unusual in an exercise that needs to be carefully drafted in order to garner the necessary support. Happens all the time in the UN.
Quote:
|
Why? We cut short the inspections and once we got in there we never found the WMDs. I'm sure someone who was listening to GWB's speeches about how SH had the most evil weapons ever devised might be able to make a straight face argument that the authority was used for reasons other than those stated at the time. Not saying they'd win, mind you, so spare me the Bush lied crapola. I realize the war could be justified on humanitarian grounds if you are so inclined, but I don't find much of that in the reso.
|
I disagree, but not worth arguing about. You advise someone to go make that argument and see how far it gets. Essentially it would be a Bush Lied argument.
Quote:
|
So we have to explicitly direct the president to be reasonable in determining whether to go to war? I like your style, man.
|
No, but to say that he went outside of his authority you would have to argue he was unreasonable.
