The Congress, by 3 to 1 margins in both houses, approved "force" (i.e., acts of war) to overthrow Saddam. This is more than was done in most other wars fought by this country. And indeed, if you insist that a declaration of war must contain the word "war" then no nation has declared war in over 50 years.
We learned nothing from the Tonkin betrayal.
Conservatives-last I looked-are for a weak and checked govt -both legislative, judicial AND executive.
Just because we like Bush does not make it ok this time.
Rant is over. I know the Republic is long dead and I am resigned to it.
The joint resolution of Congress authorized the President to use force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to...enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Simply put, the resolution amounts to carte blanche for the President to enforce UN dictates.
To be fair, the President has repeatedly expressed displeasure with the UN for not adopting a new resolution authorizing enforcement of the old UN resolutions. If the President's lament was based on the UN becoming too powerful, then his rhetoric, at least would be noteworthy, if not praiseworthy even. Unfortunately the president is only complaining that the UN is not exercising the power it has and as it should. Consider the President's words:
"We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes...
The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are the Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?...
We want the resolutions of the worlds most important multilateral body to be enforced."
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has stated that global interest should be national interest. While the President may sound like he's lauding our national interests, in reality he's supporting the same objective as that of Kofi Annan - empowerment of the United Nations. If that were not the case, then he'd be hoping that the UN indeed become irrelevant instead of fulfilling the purpose of its founding. If the UN can disarm Iraq, then so can it disarm any other nation, including America and it would be well on its way to becoming the global police force its founders had envisioned.
says as much and is something that the State Department has never disavowed even so they refuse to comment on it.
Mr. Bush actually makes the UN more relevant than to the contrary and more politically attainable than less so. By taking the position he has, he is making it easier for the U.S. to support whatever "compromise" resolutions the UN does adopt without provoking too much backlash from patriotic Americans.
If Mr. Bush truly wants to put "the UN where it belongs - the ash-bin of history - he should use his bully pulpit to try to get the U.S. out of the UN and the UN out of the U.S.