> > Don't start playing words games with me, Judy. > > jstein wrote: > The Constitution is not a word game. > The U.S. Constitution supports the President's use of force - he doesn't need congressional approval.
It's unclear what the intentions of the congressional leaders were when they voted for the President to use force in Iraq. From what I've read of their public statement, they were in favor of the invasion and the toppling of Saddam. Correct if I'm wrong on this, but John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and John Edwards all voted in favor of the resolution authorizing force. Are you suggesting that all the congressional leaders were voting simply to blackmail Saddam into abdicating or stepping down with the threat of force? But that they really didn't intend on using force to oust him. But if the congressional leaders disagreed with the president's actions in invading Iraq they could have voted not to fund the invasion - they did not, except for John Kerry, who voted for it before he voted against funding it. The consttutional question is, can congress rescend the resolution. Probably not. Judy Stein wrote: "He voted to authorize Bush to use force *if necessary as a last resort*, in the hope that would strengthen Bush's hand with the U.N. to put more pressure on Saddam so the actual use of force would be unnecessary." Source: Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Author: Judy Stein Date: 25 Aug 2004 06:27:46 -0700 Subject: Re: Bush: The Big Red Herring http://tinyurl.com/2r5pto In an op-ed in the Sept. 6, 2002, New York Times, Kerry wrote: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."
