It Is Time Conservatives Honestly Face The Iraq War

February 10, 2004 | Chuck Baldwin

[jedi]

Before President Bush ordered the attack against Iraq, I spoke against it. I believed it was wrong then; I believe it was wrong now. It also seems obvious that time has vindicated my position.

First of all, the attack against Iraq was unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal under our laws. Before the U.S. goes to war against any country, it is obligatory that Congress declares war. This was never done. Beyond that, President Bush never asked Congress for a Declaration of War. Thus, both President Bush and Congress violated the Constitution, with the result that the war against Iraq was fought illegitimately.

That Congress passed a resolution supporting Bush's decision to wage war against Iraq was irrelevant and non-binding. A resolution is not a Declaration of War. It has no legal authority whatsoever. In essence, Congress said, "This isn't our war, Mr. President. You do what you want."

The unwillingness of Congress to declare war or to demand that the president seek a Congressional Declaration of War is a serious violation of the Constitution, a serious dereliction of duty, and a serious betrayal of the American people. As our elected representatives, they, and they alone, are authorized to take America into war. No president has the right to send Americans to war on his own authority! Therefore, without a Declaration of War, the war against Iraq was not America's war; it was G.W. Bush's war.

Secondly, President Bush finally admitted what we all expected: he was planning to invade Iraq from the time he was first elected. On January 12, Bush acknowledged "that he was mapping preparations to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as soon as he took office." (Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Jan. 13, 2004). Bush's remarks came in response to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's contention that the president "was gunning for Saddam nine months before the September 11 terrorist attacks and two years before the U.S. invasion of Iraq." Therefore, all the talk about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) was a ruse to justify his personal desire to attack Saddam Hussein.

It is now clear to the whole world that Iraq never posed an imminent threat to the United States. President Bush lied to the American people when he said it was. Furthermore, Bush continued to lie about Iraq.

Syndicated Columnist George Will recently quoted President Bush saying on Polish television last May, "We found the Weapons of Mass Destruction. You know, we found biological laboratories." Of course, that was a lie. We found nothing of the sort.

Now that everyone knows there were no WMD, Bush said, "So, what's the difference? If Saddam were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger." That Bush could be so flippant with the truth is a serious matter indeed!

Beyond that, the legitimate mastermind of the 2001 terrorist attacks, Osama bin Laden, remains at large. Moreover, President Bush has proposed granting millions of illegal aliens amnesty within the United States knowing that many of these aliens are potential supporters of bin Laden.

Question: how is it that President Bush is willing to spend billions of dollars and sacrifice hundreds of American lives to attack a country half way around the world that posed no imminent threat to our country while at the same time proposing to grant millions of potential terrorists legal status within the United States?

If there is any doubt as to the potential for terrorism by illegal Mexican aliens within the United States, look no further than the recent visit of the U.S. soccer team in Zapopan, Mexico just five days ago. As "The Star-Spangled Banner" was played, thousands of Mexicans shouted, "Osama! Osama! Osama!" How many of those Mexicans shouting support for bin Laden will be living freely and legally in the United States in just a few months as a result of Bush's "guest worker" program?

Thirdly, the idea that America will preemptively attack a country transforms the United States from a constitutional republic to a monarchial or oligarchical empire, not unlike the empire of Japan that ordered a preemptive attack against Pearl Harbor in 1941. Such a transformation is fraught with danger, not only to our national security, but also to our very form of government.

Fourthly, to invade Iraq for the purpose of deposing Saddam Hussein after it was the United States that helped put Hussein in power and helped construct his regime is the height of duplicity!

As late as October 2, 1989, President George Herbert Walker Bush issued National Security Directive (NSD) 26, declaring, "Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our long- term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East." NSD 26 authorized the U.S. government to "pursue, and seek to facilitate, opportunities for U.S. firms to participate in the reconstruction of the Iraqi economy." The directive even authorized joint U.S. Iraq military exercises!

As a result of NSD 26, at least 30 U.S. commercial companies sold tens of millions of dollars worth of military and commercial technologies to Iraq. I wonder if those same companies are now being contracted to rebuild the things that were destroyed during our invasion of Iraq?

There is yet one more consideration. If we attacked Iraq because Hussein was an evil person, how many other countries are we going to attack for the same reason? After all, there are scores of evil despots and dictators in the world. Does America now see it as its responsibility to preemptively attack each of them?

For example, The Sudan must be regarded as the most brutal, bloodthirsty regime of the last two decades. The Khartoum government has murdered more than two million people during that time. Furthermore, most of those people who have been slaughtered, tortured, and sold into slavery have been Christians. Where is Bush's compassion for them? Why do we not send troops to invade The Sudan?

Furthermore, if targeting nations that harbor terrorists is the primary consideration, we should certainly invade Saudi Arabia, should we not? Remember, Osama bin Laden and most of the terrorists who attacked the U.S. in 2001 came from Saudi Arabia. Also, Saudi Arabia has doubtlessly contributed more money and support for al-Qaida than any country on earth. Why do we not attack Saudi Arabia?

And while we are on the subject, let's not overlook Communist China. This regime has murdered tens of millions of people since taking power in 1949. China is far and away a greater threat to the United States than Iraq could ever dream of being. Have we forgotten that only a few years ago the Beijing government threatened to incinerate Los Angeles with a nuclear weapon? Using Bush's reasoning, we should certainly invade China.

As a Christian conservative, I most definitely believe it is right to defend one's life, home, and country with lethal force, if necessary. However, it is not right to disregard the Constitution or to preemptively attack nations that pose no imminent threat to us. It is not right for Congress to acquiesce their responsibility to wage war on behalf of the American people. It is not right that our president should seize king-like powers and send Americans to fight and die for personal purposes. And it is not right for our president, be he Republican or Democrat, to mislead the American people regarding so serious a matter as war.

Again, time has vindicated my original position. President Bush's decision to preemptively attack Iraq was unjust, unconstitutional, and wrong. It is time for all conservatives to face it.

© Chuck Baldwin

[Texas Eagle]

Yo, Dubya. How's that "new tone" thing going?

[g35x]

A few thousand dead Americans, give or take a few hundred, don't matter to people like him.

Yep, he's using 53,000 dead Americans in Vietnam as his campaign prop. I wouldn't be surprised to see him make a campaign stop at the Vietnam Veterans memorial in D.C.

Maybe Bush could have him sent to Vietnam since it seems he loves that place more than the United States.

[reluctantwarrior]

ASOC, check your sources Sudan has oil and Talisman energy out of Canada is paying the Sudanese army to protect the rigs from the SPLA. The southern city of Juba is a hub for the exploration and a log base for ops against the SPLA. The Sudanese have effectively spent their way into several radical organizations and are only making noise about supporting the GWOT IOT keep the US out of their yard.

[man of Yosemite]

Perhaps the world needs to be reminded that we can kick some serious ass if we need to. Saddam had every chance to prevent the war and was too stupid to come clean. He is the world's biggest idiot. Unfortunately, we have plenty of halfwits in our own country willing to jump in bed with the terrorists and promote their agenda.

[BykrBayb]

I wouldn't be surprised to see him make a campaign stop at the Vietnam Veterans memorial in D.C.

Wouldn't it be nice if it turned into an episode of Twilight Zone, and the soldiers came out of the wall after him?

[mylife]

On September 19, the White House sent to Congress a "discussion draft" of proposed language for a congressional joint resolution to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces against Iraq. The first two pages review the evidence and relative authorities upon which the authorization rests. The last paragraph, however, is the operative one:

"The President is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security to the region."

[GeronL]

It also seems obvious that time has vindicated my position.

Oh PLEASE!! what a deranged idiot

[Joe_October]

Also, we can't get everyone out of poverty so let's not help any of them. Cut our taxes and let's move on.

[GeronL]

That Congress passed a resolution supporting Bush's decision to wage war against Iraq was irrelevant and non-binding. A resolution is not a Declaration of War.

Yes, it was a declaration of war, a declaration of war doesn't have to be called that.

[GeronL]

It is now clear to the whole world that Iraq never posed an imminent threat to the United States. President Bush lied to the American people when he said it was.

Here we go again. Bush said we can't wait until its imminent. What a maroon.

[mylife]

Authorization for Preemptive War Against Iraq

On Passage
10/10/2002
House Roll Call No. 455
107th Congress, 2nd Session

Passed: 296-133 (see complete tally)


The House passed H.J. Res. 114, to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces in a preemptive and unilateral war against Iraq (H. Rept. 721) by a yea and nay vote of 296 yeas to 133 nays, Roll No. 455.

Republicans were joined by 81 Democrats -- including the party's leader in the House, Richard Gephardt of Missouri.

Nancy Pelosi of Caifornia, ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence and successor to Gephardt as leader of the House Democrats, explained on Meet the Press in November, 2002 that she "would support the President" if he engaged in a preemptive and unilteral war against Iraq.

In another interview, Pelosi explained that her position of support for Bush should he choose to wage preemptive war was without reservation, "I know that we will all be 100 percent behind the president and in support of our young people in the military."

[GeronL]

when Kerry makes a campaign stop at the wall, I hope someone points out the 6,000 members of the National Guard who have their names on it. Apparently he thinks they all avoided service.

[quantim]

I kept waiting to read in this diatribe about how we ought to hand everything over to the U.N. so we can exit...but that never came. Saving that for part 2?

[TheWriterInTexas]

Wow, I couldn't make it past the first two paragraphs without spotting obvious flaws in the article.

First of all, this is not a new war, but an old war. Under the terms of the cease fire, UNR 678 and 687, and subsequent resolutions 1154, Iraq had to fully and completely comply with inspections, eliminate its WMD programmes to the satisfaction of the international community, and allow allied forces to patrol the "no fly" zone in Iraq.

During that time, Iraq repeatedly violated those sanctions, failed to cooperate, and attacked our planes. Any one of these was considered a breach of the terms of the cease fire and allowed for a military response on the part of America to bring them into compliance.

Also, Chuckie fails to mention several Joint resolutions passed by the House and Senate in 1998 authorizing the use of force, finding Saddam in material breach, and calling for the elimination of his regime, at the discretion of the President.

In other words, all this nonsense about calling for an official declaration of war is symmantical bullshit. President Bush had already been given authorization to use force before he even took office. This authority was granted to the Office of the President, then held by Clinton, to respond to perceived threats by Iraq.

Considering that Chuckie doesn't even know these basic FACTS, I am not going to waste additional time and effort on the rest of his dreck. He has already lost credibility and I leave the rest to a FReeper with more patience than myself.

[Jaysun]

That Congress passed a resolution supporting Bush's decision to wage war against Iraq was irrelevant and non-binding. A resolution is not a Declaration of War. It has no legal authority whatsoever.

The Constitution doesn't say what method is to be used for "declaring war." The President went to Congress and asked for the right to wage war. They granted him permission. What's "irrelevant and non-binding" about that? Dolt.

Bush's remarks came in response to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's contention that the president "was gunning for Saddam nine months before the September 11 terrorist attacks and two years before the U.S. invasion of Iraq."

The documents cited by O'Neill dated from the Clinton administration. Did you not see Paul on television a few days later apologizing? When did the criticism change from "no plan" to this? Jackass.

Thirdly, the idea that America will preemptively attack a country transforms the United States from a constitutional republic to a monarchical or oligarchical empire..........Such a transformation is fraught with danger, not only to our national security, but also to our very form of government.

How does a preemptive attack policy transform us into something different that a constitutional republic? How is our national security or form of government "fraught with danger" because of a preemptive attack policy? These statements are baseless and nonsensical proclamations by the author. What about Iran? What about Libya? What about the fact that we've not been attacked again? Kook.

Fourthly, to invade Iraq for the purpose of deposing Saddam Hussein after it was the United States that helped put Hussein in power and helped construct his regime is the height of duplicity!

I suppose your policy would be to never change our policies when our "friends" behavior changes? Once friends always friends? That would be great for the nut-jobs of the world wouldn't it? They'd buddy up to us, become our friends, then go about murdering hundreds of thousands of people - while we shrugged our shoulders and said, "What a pity. We'd love to stop him but we can't. We made friends with him 20 years ago...." Brainsick Maniac.

I hope that you go post on DU from this point on so that I won't have to worry about wasting another 3 minutes of my life by exposing myself to your endless stupidity.

[PhilipFreneau]

Baldwin is a leftist troll pretending to be conservative.

[Zeroisanumber]

I actually DO hate the War Powers Act, but that's beside the point.

[Jorge]

Also, we can't get everyone out of poverty so let's not help any of them. Cut our taxes and let's move on.

Right. We can't stop ALL crime so why arrest any murderers and keep them in jail. Cut our taxes and let's move on.
Insane.

[ASOC]

Will do. Thanks

[Nick Danger]

That Congress passed a resolution supporting Bush's decision to wage war against Iraq was irrelevant and non-binding. A resolution is not a Declaration of War. It has no legal authority whatsoever.

December 8, 1941

          JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

          Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.