John Kerry says he ‘opposed the president’s (George W. Bush) decision to go into Iraq’

[kenny blankenship]

19. This is the danger of AUMF style resolutions as opposed to straight up War! declarations

The AUMF on Iraq was a blank check for war that pretended that it was not a blank check for war. It purported to set "tough" conditions on the use of force and prohibit it if those conditions weren't met by the Executive. The Executive never even bothered with fulfilling the theatrical requirements supposedly placed on it, but barged ahead into Iraq, knowing there would be no consequences. Such a resolution allows people like Kerry to say that they voted FOR something, and also AGAINST something in voting yes on the bill. They must admit they voted yes to the bill, but they say they were always against what it authorized. They can argue they were on either side later on, for or against, at different times, according to whichever seems more politically advantageous at the moment. That's what Kerry is doing. How can they do this? Because a bill like the AUMF pretends to be a neutral flowchart of decision making, a set of contingencies which trigger set consequences. He voted Yes but says he was against the war. That is a lie. It's a lie because everyone who isn't a fucking liar or in an institution for mental incompetents knew that there was no way the Executive branch would supply answers to those contingencies in any way but in manner that led to war. Kerry bid the Iraq war commence, adopting a craven and dishonest posture of saying "but only if thus and such are the case". It's no surprise he makes use of the duplicity built into the Iraq War AUMF because bills are crafted to allow crafty folks to lie out of both sides of their mouths like this. "I voted Yes, but I was against the main thing that the bill authorized!" Bullshit you were, John. Bullshit you are now.

A danger we face, now that straight up WARRRR!!!! has been rejected by Congress, is that the Administration and the leadership of both parties, unified in wanting war, will craft another such contingency laden war resolution, supposedly placing strong conditions on the authorization of force, but in practice letting 'er rip just like Congress did when Bush was President. The War Preznit will say he needs this pre-authorization to look credible in negotiations, and the Congress can escape the immediate hit they would have taken in public opinion for voting yes to straight up WAARRRR!!!! The consequences for voting Yes will be deferred. Responsibility can all be shunted onto UN weapons inspectors, or onto the President, who's not up for reelection anyway. It becomes much easier to vote to make war when it is worded as a contingency: if report comes back X, then we do Y. That way we weren't slavering for war, we were just blandly following a bureaucratic procedure (to join in the butchery.) And politicians can say in the future, like Kerry says of his shameful past, that they weren't voting for war. Oh no! They opposed the idea of war. They just voted Yes on a neutral resolution that said that military action might be taken when some conditions were met. It didn't say war would definitely be launched! It's not their fault of course, that the President didn't bother to fulfill his obligations, or if the UN inspectors couldn't satisfy the President... Except their names are still recorded in the Yea column on the bill that authorized the war.