The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.© Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Why the debate over repealing Iraq War approval mattersBy ELLEN KNICKMEYER and MARY CLARE JALONICK WASHINGTON
©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.
Login to comment
First time I have heard about this and the timing is interesting.
A common rhetorical tactic of Putin supporters online is to accuse the West of hypocrisy in criticizing the invasion of Ukraine.
The US used fake news (Iraqi soldiers killing babies in incubators and "yellow cake" uranium) to create a rationale for invasion and unfortunately this was a lesson learned by other nations.
The vote means little unless the neocon architects of the policies face consequences, and that won't happen.
Agree with Dagon; war criminal neocons including W and Tony Blair need to be held accountable, but it won't happen. WMD, Valerie Plame, Judith Miller, Hans Blix, Chalabi, Bremer, Blackwater, Halliburton, yeah, remember those names that were in the headlines? Everyone is now obsessed with MAGA and Dump, but fail to realize that this current manifestation is from the rot that has continued because there hasn't been any accountability.
The US President is not supposed to be able to go to war without the approval of Congress. This latest action reinstates that principle.
When Bush and Cheney were trying to convince Congressmen to vote for the war powers act, enabling the President to bypass Congress, part of their argument was, "You can trust us!" We've seen how that worked out.
We see the same thing happening now with the neocons that are trying to justify involving the nation in this current war.
A rhetorical tactic or a legitimate argument? If the largest military power on the planet consistently refuses to abide by international law as it ruthlessly pursues its geopolitical interests, why would competing powers disadvantage themselves by sticking to the rules? The US has done more to erode international law than any other state, with the Iraq invasion being just one of many examples.
In modern times republican presidents went to war.
Yes, the biggest political party flip flop in “modern times”$$$$$
The US put pressure on India to send its troops to Iraq considering the good India-Iraq relations, but India refused.
In hindsight, turned out to be a good decision because sending troops would have meant that India today would have been in no position to point out US hypocrisy when others blame India for refusing to criticize and cut ties with Russia.
Evil,India troop instead went to Kashmere
The George W. Bush government started the Iraq War without the U.N. Security Council's approval and neither without U.S. Congress's defunct approval.
So, what's the difference between Vladimir Putin's special military operations in Ukraine and George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, justifying it by saying that Saddam Husein has stashed a large stockpile of weapons of mass destruction?
And Democrats signed off for it in large part, now it's the Dems that are pushing for war.
Don't be cute. Most members of both parties are applying the lessons of the lead up to WWII and voting to appropriate funds to pay for military and economic aid to Ukraine so their forces, not those of the US, can defeat a Russian invasion. How different the world would have been if the US, UK, France and Canada had funded the Czechs and Poles in 1939 and they had held off German advances. The goal is to prevent a larger war that would inevitably involve US and other NATO nation forces.
A subset of Republicans oppose US aid to Ukraine because thy admire Vladimir Putin and want him to win and in fact want to impose a Russian style strongman and oppressive Russian style government in the US, but are too timid and dishonest to admit this. I believe you are clearly among that subset. You could unambiguously denounce the Russian invasion but refuse to.
Nothing. Both wars are premised on lies.
Now, you tell us how that history affects current western policies regarding aiding the Ukrainian war effort? Where US allies were largely opposed to the US invasion of Iraq and many refused to be a part of it today the situation is a European nation that aspires to EU and NATO membership being invaded by Russia. So tell us, is the US somehow to blame for this? Is the US supposed to simply turn a blind eye? How about if China invaded Okinawa? Should the US chose the "peaceful" course and let the Chinese take Okinawa. Would that make you happy?
If The US and NATO had left Saddam and Gaddafi to control their own regions then all these terrorist groups such as ISIS won’t have existed or simply would have been powerless. Terrorist groups were armed by the CIA to remove Saddam and Gaddafi. These same terrorist groups then killed thousands of Americans over the year’s following the death of Saddam and Gaddafi as the power vacuum took effect. Reap what you sow! It’s not only terrorism which was the byproduct of this removal of Saddam and Gaddafi but also the migrant issue that Europe faced afterwards as the Middle East became a war torn region! The US is to blame for all this!
You say along with me that there's no difference between Putin's "special military operations" in Ukraine and Bush's blatant invasion of Iraq, adding that both wars started on lies and false premises.
Note, however, that the U.S. and Russia are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council that are granted a special veto power at its meetings to resolve matters relevant to world peace. They must be role models for war-defeated Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan as exemplary peace keepers.
Look at the reality, however. They are doing things that are no different from disgusting fascism.
That story is a falsehood, and spread too often by people who know it is false. The US funded the Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviets, not Al Qaeda. The Mujahideen were composed of native Afghan tribes opposed to the Soviets. AQ were Arabs and did not participate significantly in the fight against the Soviets. The Mujahideen did not like AQ. Afghans are not Arabs, speak different languages and have a different culture. They were rivals of the Mujahideen. AQ sided with the Taliban after the Soviet withdrawal and subsequent tribal warfare among the former Muhahideen tribes. Pakistan created the Taliban, financed them and still supports them.
Where the US opened a can of worms was invading Iraq and several very bad choices made during the subsequent occupation, including disbanding the Iraqi Army, Baathification and installing a Shiite dictator as the Iraqi President. The mistreatment of Sunnis and favoritism shown Shiites, combined with a similar dynamic in the Syrian Civil War where a Shiite dictator was fighting mostly Sunni rebel groups led to the formation of IS.
Interestingly IS and the Taliban are mortal enemies.
If you cannot discern the difference between the US and Russia you do not deserve to live in an elected representative government. Dissent against the invasion of Iraq was never suppressed or punished as it is protected by the First Amendment, and if you are honest (big if) you will acknowledge there were vigorous protests and to this day there continues to be so. Nobody in the press went to jail for reporting the many abuses of power committed by the Bush administration. But unlike Russia a US President cannot on their own declare the authorization of force to be over, only Congress can do that, and despite the attempts of Mr. Obama to shut down Guantanamo the US Congress has routinely written provisions into budget appropriation bills prohibiting the closure of Guantanamo or the transfer of any of the prisoners held there to US soil. Unlike Russia there are things a US President cannot do because of the separation of powers written into the US Constitution. Remember, GW Bush had to go to Congress and obtain permission to invade Iraq. He lied in his reasons to do so but without the authority of Congress he could not have legally invaded. Congress also could have cut funding at any time. The fact is as awful as it was that invasion reflected the will of a majority of the people of the US.
So again would you prefer the US simply turned its back on Okinawa if/when China attacks? Can't have those nasty evil Americans fighting can we. Remember a lot of Asia still resents Japan and doesn't exactly trust them to have the full range of military capabilities to fight the likes of China or Russia, you know, like the old days of Imperial Japan.
You seem to say that the Iraq War pushed by George W. Bush can be justified because at home voices against it wasn't suppressed at all whereas in Russia dissenters against the Ukrainian war or the special military operations in Iraq are rounded up and arrested. Yes, there may be such differences, but they are not substantial differences.
The Iraq War and the Ukrainian War are similar in that both are/were the blatant infringement of another nation's sovereignty.
This is the law of a jungle, which practice was taken for granted in the days of colonialism and imperialism. The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, above all, the U.S. and Russia, are supposed to teach a
lessen to the fascist nations of yesterday as a role model.