Sunday, January 30, 2005
Stop Practicing Law Without A License: "WMDs, Period" Revisited Yet Again
It was bad enough when right-wingers polluted the blogosphere by citing the "whereas clauses" of Joint Resolution 114 as proof that Senator Boxer was lying when she said it was "WMDs, period."
But now this insidious misunderstanding and distortion of the role of "whereas clauses" has infected the left blogosphere, and it needs to stop.
Too many people (some well meaning, some not so well meaning) are attempting legislative analysis without any legal background whatsoever.
While I no longer practice law, I did work as a lawyer for more than a dozen years -- long enough to know that the true power of legislation lies, not in the "whereas clause" section, but in the language that follows.
The purpose of "whereas clauses," be they in contracts between private individuals or in war resolutions, is to cite history and background. They do not empower action. They do not give people (or U.S. Presidents) any authority whatsoever.
And that's exactly where Loyal Opposition, in his good faith effort to reconcile the "WMDs, period" statement with the Resolution, has gone astray.
In this post Loyal Opposition says:
But those and the rest of the "whereas clause" items he cites were not intended to set forth reasons to go to war. Their purpose was to state background and history. They did not just justify war or give the President any power to wage it. That isn't what "whereas clauses" do.
The meat of this Resolution is in Sections 1 through 4. And that's where you'll find President Bush's powers (and responsibilities) with respect to a (then potential) war against Iraq.
One can argue that our legislators were duped into signing that Resolution by false Bush Administration claims about imminent threats and insincere promises to exhaust diplomatic efforts before going to war.
One can argue that President Bush's war powers set forth in those sections were conditional and that those conditions were not fulfilled.
But please stop saying that the historical laundry list of wrongful Iraq actions were reasons to go to war. They were no such thing. And they certainly do not undermine Senator Boxer's credibility.
But now this insidious misunderstanding and distortion of the role of "whereas clauses" has infected the left blogosphere, and it needs to stop.
Too many people (some well meaning, some not so well meaning) are attempting legislative analysis without any legal background whatsoever.
While I no longer practice law, I did work as a lawyer for more than a dozen years -- long enough to know that the true power of legislation lies, not in the "whereas clause" section, but in the language that follows.
The purpose of "whereas clauses," be they in contracts between private individuals or in war resolutions, is to cite history and background. They do not empower action. They do not give people (or U.S. Presidents) any authority whatsoever.
And that's exactly where Loyal Opposition, in his good faith effort to reconcile the "WMDs, period" statement with the Resolution, has gone astray.
In this post Loyal Opposition says:
In the end, you vote on the bill as written, and it wasn't "WMDs, period." It was the "total picture", like Rice said. In addition to WMDs the resolution contains in black and white other reasons for going to war, including
1. brutal repression of the Iraqi civilian population
2. refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman
3. failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait
4. attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush...
But those and the rest of the "whereas clause" items he cites were not intended to set forth reasons to go to war. Their purpose was to state background and history. They did not just justify war or give the President any power to wage it. That isn't what "whereas clauses" do.
The meat of this Resolution is in Sections 1 through 4. And that's where you'll find President Bush's powers (and responsibilities) with respect to a (then potential) war against Iraq.
One can argue that our legislators were duped into signing that Resolution by false Bush Administration claims about imminent threats and insincere promises to exhaust diplomatic efforts before going to war.
One can argue that President Bush's war powers set forth in those sections were conditional and that those conditions were not fulfilled.
But please stop saying that the historical laundry list of wrongful Iraq actions were reasons to go to war. They were no such thing. And they certainly do not undermine Senator Boxer's credibility.
# posted by Mad Kane @ 3:30 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
The point that I was trying to make in my post on this issue was the reasons Sen. Boxer made such a statement wasn't because of the legal rationale in the bill but because of the rhetorical rationale that was sold to the American people. By making this statement, she opened the doors to a full-fledged debate on the Iraq war.
Uh, CGD, I don't think one can accuse Mad Kane, founder of this group blog, of attempting to stifle debate. She has asked that we quit eating our own. She has asked that we quit eating our own using right-wing spin points that have no basis in reality. I don't think this is an unreasonable request.
I share LoyOpp's disappointment in Democratic Senators who fell for Bush's and Rice's lies. I don't care whether they voted for the Iraq war out of re-election fears or credulity. They aren't going to see campaign donations or volunteer work from me.
I think we are starting to see a change in many Democrats' behavior. I believe this is a direct result of Sen. Boxer's willingness to stand alone on Ohio election fraud and other Democrats noticing the sky didn't fall down on her. In fact, she got an outpouring of support that they could only dream of.
She didn't have to stand alone in her vote against Mushroom Cloud Rice. After that, all Democrats in committee voted against Abu Gonzales despite race baiting by some Republicans that it was an anti-Hispanic vote.
I fear some Democrats' new found courage will fail them in the coming months and years. I am not afraid that Sen. Boxer will lose hers.
I think we are starting to see a change in many Democrats' behavior. I believe this is a direct result of Sen. Boxer's willingness to stand alone on Ohio election fraud and other Democrats noticing the sky didn't fall down on her. In fact, she got an outpouring of support that they could only dream of.
She didn't have to stand alone in her vote against Mushroom Cloud Rice. After that, all Democrats in committee voted against Abu Gonzales despite race baiting by some Republicans that it was an anti-Hispanic vote.
I fear some Democrats' new found courage will fail them in the coming months and years. I am not afraid that Sen. Boxer will lose hers.
This is in response to your various comments:
1. First let me state that, as George says, my purpose isn't to stifle debate, but to persuade Democrats to "quit eating our own using right-wing spin points that have no basis in reality."
I think that it's great that we're talking about what Senator Boxer meant by "WMD's, period." I believe she meant that the Bush administration persuaded her colleagues that the imminent threat of "WMD's" rendered the Resolution necessary. But of course I'm no mind reader and welcome this discussion. And I would love for Senator Boxer to clarify exactly what she meant.
Again, I'm not trying to shut down this discussion, and I encourage dissent, discussion, and clarification. What I do discourage is spreading misinformation (however inadvertently). And I believe that misinterpreting the role of "whereas clauses" has that net effect.
2. My post was not meant to justify the War Resolution or to excuse the huge number of Democrats who voted for it. The Democrats who voted for it were Bush administration dupes and pawns. In many cases, they feared being perceived as weak on terrorism, a fear that the Bush administration skillfully manipulated.
The Democrats who voted for the Resolution fell for Bush administration scare tactics. They fell for Bush administration claims that Iraq posed an imminent threat from WMD's. They fell for Bush administration claims that Bush needed the Resolution in order to avoid war. They fell for Bush's promise to use war as a last resort. And they apparently deluded themselves into believing that Bush would comply with the Resolution and would not go to war unless the conditions of doing so set forth in Sections 1 through 4 were fulfilled.
Those conditions were not fulfilled and, in my opinion, Bush never intended to comply with the Resolution. And, based on Bush's deceitful track record, Democrats should have anticipated Bush's noncompliance with the Resolution and refused to vote for it.
Democrats who supported that Resolution should have known better and have much to apologize and atone for.
3. I did not mean to imply that any Democrats posting here are deliberately trying to discredit Senator Boxer. What I meant was that some of you are inadvertently discrediting her by misinterpreting the Resolution.
4. Again, the "whereas clauses" don't explain "the reason and the causation behind that particular vote." For the most part, Democrats supported the Resolution for the reasons I cite right above in item "2." The "whereas clauses" provide history and background, including a recitation of many long past events, and not, as Loyal Opposition asserts "reasons for going to war."
You don't go to war because of long past events. You got to war because of an imminent threat. And the so-called imminent threat was, of course, false Bush administration claims of WMDs.
5. Liberal Avenger asks me to provide some examples of the "sort of nonsense the right-wing blogosphere is spinning this into with regards to Boxer. I hadn't bookmarked them, but did a quick search and found these three:
LGF Reason and Revelation 4 Mile Creek6. If my post wasn't sufficiently clear, I apologize. I hope this clarifies my position.
7. In addition to posting this as a comment here, I plan to post it as a new post which I will call "Mad Kane Clarifies Her Previous "WMD's Period" Post."
Post a Comment
1. First let me state that, as George says, my purpose isn't to stifle debate, but to persuade Democrats to "quit eating our own using right-wing spin points that have no basis in reality."
I think that it's great that we're talking about what Senator Boxer meant by "WMD's, period." I believe she meant that the Bush administration persuaded her colleagues that the imminent threat of "WMD's" rendered the Resolution necessary. But of course I'm no mind reader and welcome this discussion. And I would love for Senator Boxer to clarify exactly what she meant.
Again, I'm not trying to shut down this discussion, and I encourage dissent, discussion, and clarification. What I do discourage is spreading misinformation (however inadvertently). And I believe that misinterpreting the role of "whereas clauses" has that net effect.
2. My post was not meant to justify the War Resolution or to excuse the huge number of Democrats who voted for it. The Democrats who voted for it were Bush administration dupes and pawns. In many cases, they feared being perceived as weak on terrorism, a fear that the Bush administration skillfully manipulated.
The Democrats who voted for the Resolution fell for Bush administration scare tactics. They fell for Bush administration claims that Iraq posed an imminent threat from WMD's. They fell for Bush administration claims that Bush needed the Resolution in order to avoid war. They fell for Bush's promise to use war as a last resort. And they apparently deluded themselves into believing that Bush would comply with the Resolution and would not go to war unless the conditions of doing so set forth in Sections 1 through 4 were fulfilled.
Those conditions were not fulfilled and, in my opinion, Bush never intended to comply with the Resolution. And, based on Bush's deceitful track record, Democrats should have anticipated Bush's noncompliance with the Resolution and refused to vote for it.
Democrats who supported that Resolution should have known better and have much to apologize and atone for.
3. I did not mean to imply that any Democrats posting here are deliberately trying to discredit Senator Boxer. What I meant was that some of you are inadvertently discrediting her by misinterpreting the Resolution.
4. Again, the "whereas clauses" don't explain "the reason and the causation behind that particular vote." For the most part, Democrats supported the Resolution for the reasons I cite right above in item "2." The "whereas clauses" provide history and background, including a recitation of many long past events, and not, as Loyal Opposition asserts "reasons for going to war."
You don't go to war because of long past events. You got to war because of an imminent threat. And the so-called imminent threat was, of course, false Bush administration claims of WMDs.
5. Liberal Avenger asks me to provide some examples of the "sort of nonsense the right-wing blogosphere is spinning this into with regards to Boxer. I hadn't bookmarked them, but did a quick search and found these three:
LGF Reason and Revelation 4 Mile Creek6. If my post wasn't sufficiently clear, I apologize. I hope this clarifies my position.
7. In addition to posting this as a comment here, I plan to post it as a new post which I will call "Mad Kane Clarifies Her Previous "WMD's Period" Post."
<< Home
