Blog For Arizona

Bush Red Handed

Bush lied to Congress to get us into a war, and he now admits it.

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,


GEORGE W. BUSH

But now, Bush says that:

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

The failure to find any imminent WMD threat is problematic for the presidential determination required under §3(b)(1). But is it fatal? Arguably not. (A) seems blown. Iraq posed no credible threat to the United States. Clearly, the President had no evidence that Iraq did, or he wouldn't have fabricated so much of his case. However, the language seems to presume a threat, not require proof of one.

(B), must also be true, but it too offers an easy out: should Bush determine that further peaceful means are not likely to lead to compliance with relevant UN Resolutions, he may attack. "Likely" is not a strong standard of proof. At best, it must appear plausable to the President. Given Saddam's games with the inspectors, Bush can make a case. And with a GOP Congress, a plausible case is all he needs.

Now Bush says he has no evidence that Saddam was involved in September 11 (when on March 18th he says he did have such evidence), which seems to negate Article 2 of his legislatively-required justification for war as outlined under PL 107-243.

Doesn’t this mean he lied to comply with the provisions of PL 107-243? Maybe. And isn't that an impeachable offense? Maybe. Did the drafters put in enough weasel words to allow Bush to slide by? Maybe.

This is the relevant language from the Presidential Determination section:

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

"Consistent with" is the key language on which the Administration will hang their hats if the shit hits the fan. They will claim this language does not require an attack on Iraq to be "because of" 9/11, just "consistent with" the neccesary actions against terrorists "including", but not limited to, those who carried out 9/11. In short, this Resolution is so poorly drafted you can pole a raft of monkeys through it's holes; and that is exactly what the President did.

I doubt the President is in any danger of impeachment on this account. The President came clean on the 9/11 connection precisely so that he could not be accused of lying to Congress. Since the accusation against Iraq was more in the way of innuendo, obsfucation, and associative language, than actual clear statments, his confession clears the "misimpression" anyone might have gotten into their silly heads.

Bush's legal counsel are no fools, but the people who drafted PL 107-243 were. Or they were willing dupes.

posted by Michael Bryan @ 9/22/2003 06:14:00 PM