Edwards: Bush waging War "Without Authorization"

[papau]

Purpose of IWR is completed and IWR is no longer in force

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2875653&page=1

Edwards: Bush Waging War 'Without Authorization'
RNC Calls Edwards' Claim 'Preposterous'; Legal Expert Disagrees
By TEDDY DAVIS Feb. 14, 2007

Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., said Wednesday that President Bush is waging war in Iraq "without authorization." A GOP spokesman called Edwards' claim "preposterous," but a leading national security expert disagreed with that assessment.

"We need to make clear, the Congress needs to make clear," said Edwards, "that President Bush has been conducting this war at this stage without authorization, because the 2002 authorization did not give George Bush authority to use U.S. combat troops to police a civil war, which is exactly what's happening right now."<snip>

Dan Ronayne, a Republican National Committee spokesman sharply rebuked Edwards, pointing to the former senator's 2002 vote that authorized the president to use the U.S. Armed Forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." <snip>

Stephen Dycus, a Vermont Law School professor and the author of the leading casebook on national security law, told ABC News that the Iraq War resolution, which Edwards supported, is "very broadly drawn." <snip>

Despite the broad wording of the Iraq War resolution, Dycus believes it is reasonable for Edwards to argue that the president's authority is constrained by the original purpose for which the power was granted.

"A good argument," said Dycus, "can be made that the president needs to come back to Congress because the stated purpose of the original resolution either didn't exist, or has been accomplished."

[saltpoint]

1. Whoa. I've not heard of Dycus up to now, but he's giving the

stern look across the party room at lil' Dubya.

It may also be an interesting peek into the president's personality. There's a hint that he knows he lacks this authorization, but his psycho-social development is still more or less around 9-years, and he reverts to his default 9-year old bully self, out on the playground, ignoring the bell, ignoring the rules of the game being played, ignoring admonishments from stern-but-well-meaning teachers...

Edwards is right to bring still more pressure to bear against this president, but I like Dycus' comment also.

[Trillo]

2. Yes. It was a "fraudulent" war,

the basis for which now seems to have been entirely false.

"Without Authorization" Nice phrase!

[Nite Owl]

3. Edwards is an excellent

lawyer, he wouldn't be saying this without good basis.

[benny05]

4. I think this is a really cool idea to challenge Bush that way

Here's other parts of Edwards' plan for Congress:

Stop the escalation and force an immediate withdrawal by using funding caps to restrict the total number of troops in Iraq to 100,000, which would require an immediate drawdown of 40,000-50,000 combat troops without stranding or underfunding a single soldier still in Iraq. Any troops beyond the 100,000 level should be redeployed immediately.

Block the deployment of troops that do not meet readiness standards and that have not been properly trained and equipped. American Tax dollars must be used to prepare and supply our troops, not escalate the war. It is simply wrong to send our troops into harm's way without all the training and equipment they need.

Make it clear that President Bush is conducting this war without authorization. The 2002 authorization did not give Bush the power to use U.S. troops to police a civil war. President Bush exceeded his authority long ago. He now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability.

Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq within the next 12-18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

from http://blog.johnedwards.com

[dk2]

5. Edwards has been leading the push for

withdrawal, he will continue to lead on this. I hope the public and netroots will get behind him with this, he has had petitions to sign on his website. We should all be active in contacting out representatives about Iraq. More letters to the Editors. It will be interesting to see if the MSM covers this.

[benny05]

6. Edwards on Real Time

Friday night at 11:00 PM (HBO)

I bet Maher asks him about this.

[Amonester]

15. Toll-Free 800 Numbers in my sig line. Call Congress en masse.

Thanks to calimary and Sapphire Blue for informing us of their existence.
:hi: :thumbsup:

[kurth]

7. Edwards is right

The hell with what Dycus says.

[youngdem]

8. This may be true in the nuance, but in the realm of public opinion, Mr. Edwards looks foolish

He is chiding Bush for going to war with the Authorization that Edwards himself gave him. True, he was lied to, but folks (like Obama and the rest of DU) knew before the war that it was a bullshit bill of goods, but Edwards didn't grow a spine then...NO..He waited until it was politically expedient and then he said he made a mistake.

What courage! :sarcasm:


I like Edwards as a man, but HATE him more everyday as a potential leader. He is just too damn eager to pander and say ANYTHING to get elected. He seems DESPERATE to get elected, yet I haven't heard any reason (policy wise) to vote for him. He hasn't called for a withdrawal, has he? Until then, wake me up if it gets good. Right now, we have a slate of DLC'ers and Obama.

[WritersBlock]

11. With respect, it's true in fact, not nuance, in the wording of the resolutions.

Whatever feelings one has about those who voted for these resolutions, and especially for the IWR, the fact remains that the resolutions themselves were very clear in the authority given for the use of force. And neither one of them are valid for the current situation in Iraq.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=3123284

[aquart]

12. Uh, that's called ambition. They've all got it.

Or they wouldn't be running for president.

And nobody beats Obama for ambition.

[Marnieworld]

20. I haven't investigated

But Obama has always seemed DLC to me. His ass-kissing of Israel recently was just right out of their playbook. I also don't recall hearing him speak up in 2002 or 2003 against the war and I was really really listening to who was. I would have gladly loved Obama speaking out with Howard Dean, Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich, Feingold, and even the brave celebrities like the Dixie Chicks, and Janaeanne Garafolo who suffered for their words professionally. I don't remember it at all. If he said anything he didn't say it loudly.

As far as Edwards is concerned, I think this is a creative way to call attention to this illegal war and to counter-act it with law and gov't, two things that we as a country need to return to. I think that focusing on poverty and Katrina is hardly just a gimmick to get votes. It's not flag burning and violent video games.

The IWR and any other authorization was specifically in response to conditions detailed in the documents. These conditions were never true as many knew then but everyone knows now. If the conditions to give authorization don't exist then it is legitimate to argue that the authorization is nullified.

[benny05]

23. And the answer is

Edwards was the FIRST to call for an immediate withdrawal of 30-40,000 troops in August last year.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2006/08/05/john_edwards_calls_for_immediate_withdrawal_from_iraq/

So, he's not pandering. Others are reading what he says and parroting some of his ideas.

Sheesh!

[MaggieSwanson]

24. The FIRST to call for immediate withdrawal?

Others are parroting some of his(JE's) ideas?

x(

Dennis Kucinich has been advocating for troop withdrawal for a hell of a lot longer than John Edwards. Regardless of how you feel about DJK, you can't make that fact go away.

Edwards isn't the first candidate to advocate immediate troop withdrawal.

Obama is not the only true anti-war candidate.

Please, support candidates based on their own merits.

I like to keep an open mind about all of our Dem candidates - I truly do - but one thing that really irks me is when supporters try to pretend that their candidate has Dennis's record.

It is disrespectful to ignore the track record of a candidate that has worked so tirelessly for peace.

[benny05]

25. My apologies to the Congressman

You are right about Rep Kucinich, and while he isn't my choice for 2008, he is for peace.

[MaggieSwanson]

30. Thanks, benny05.

It means a lot.

Peace,

Maggie

[sampsonblk]

29. Good catch Maggie!-nt

nt

[PATRICK]

9. Yes, a direct challenge!

This is what the nation has been dancing around, even arguing about the objects of our unbeloved dictator's criminal affections and all the chess pieces he gets to throw around the room.

More of this and more pressure. The two lunatics are not very capable when responsibly confronted, but they rarely are. The only way to avoid the "war" against Iran is to confront the two men who make this scenario inevitable by their own stubborn will.

Is there anyone junior has not betrayed, let down, threatened? Just exactly where is this absolute power of his anyway except by the strange grace of averted eyes and inaction on the part of responsible government and fawning press coverage?

Let the world begin closing in on the real threat to the security of all, the real criminals, the frauds hiding behind the office and the nation they betrayed.

[WritersBlock]

10. Thank Goodness! I posted about this last month. I am SO glad to hear Edwards saying it, too!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=3123284

[The Stranger]

13. Wow, some adviser with brains must have signed on to our woeful party.

Now this meme is good.

[ryanmuegge]

14. Wasn't the resolution a blank check to do whatever the fuck he (the President) wanted?

I thought it was pretty broad and ambiguous. Perhaps I'm wrong.

[sandnsea]

17. No, it was not

It only authorized war after all peaceful means had been exhausted; and then only if Iraq were determined to be a grave danger.

Bush launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" - which had absolutely nothing to do with the IWR. I think even John Dean has said that.

[reprobate]

27. Actually, Bush launched "Operation Iraqi Liberation". It wasn't until

people started laughing at the acronym OIL that they changed it to "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

A perfect example of just how conniving but basically STUPID these people really are. Or were they just rubbing our faces in it with OIL.

[Amonester]

18. And there's evidence the little aWoL liar was determined to start his

War no matter what.

("f**k Saddam! We're taking him out!" - 2002)
("The Intelligence is being fixed around the policy." - DSM)
(etc.)

So... obviously, the idiot sociopath USED the Congress only for his fake show, since he had already "decided" to invade a country to grab its resources (oil), enrich his base (the have's and have-more's), while defrauding the taxpayers of their Treasury money.

All the reasons invoked were made up lies. The nitwit wanted to avenge poppy, no matter what. Darth and Rumsferatu had convinced him IraQNam would be a shinning victory, that Iraqis would treat him as their liberator :puke: and that they would throw flowers at his motorcade... :argh:

[sandnsea]

16. It doesn't authorize 'liberation"

Consequently, "Operation Iraqi FREEDOM" was never legitimate - which is why Bush had to LIE about WMD to start his war.

[Doondoo]

19. K&R

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

21. K and R. I really like what I hear. The new Democratic congress has been up and running for a mere 6

weeks, and our national dialog is already shifting in spite of the corporomedia's attempts. MKJ

[Catchawave]

22. KnR !

:kick:

[goforit]

26. You're damn right Edwards!!!

[mvd]

28. Exactly right!

I've been waiting for someone to say this. :applause: