Did the US congress vote to invade Iraq or to give President Bush permission to use force?

Question

Is there a difference and does it matter?

Answer 1

Permission to use force.... the problem that many on the Right seem to selectively overlook is that 90% of those congressional members that approved this force, never thought in 100 years Bush would do it unilaterally. They assumed he would work with the United Nations on it and not just ignore their advice.

Yes there is a difference... Congress voting to invade a country is a congressional declaration of war. They do have that power but haven't actually used it since WW2.

Answer 2

In the case of Iraq, Congress has not passed a formal declaration of war, or authorized any military action whatsoever. Even the sweeping Use of Force resolution approved by Congress three days after the attack on the World Trade Center falls short of authorizing military action against Iraq. That resolution would sanction war with Iraq only if it is determined that the Iraqi government "aided" the commission of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. The evidence for that proposition seems far weaker than it did in October, when Czech government officials announced that hijacker Mohammed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague last April. Recent reports in the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Czech press have cast doubts on whether that meeting ever occurred. (IT DIDN'T)

Bush attacked Iraq based on lying to congress as we all now know Hussene was no terrorist, nor did he have anything to do with the trade center!

Bush has used the War Powers Act a little too loosely and I assume that will be tightened up shortly!!

Congress did vote, however, on October 11, 2002 however they were lied to, mislead and Bush did not allow them access to all the information. As A Former member of the hill representing Florida said:

The American people needed to know these reservations, and I requested that an unclassified, public version of the NIE be prepared. On Oct. 4, Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version. Its conclusions, such as "If Baghdad acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year," underscored the White House's claim that exactly such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq.

From my advantaged position, I had earlier concluded that a war with Iraq would be a distraction from the successful and expeditious completion of our aims in Afghanistan. Now I had come to question whether the White House was telling the truth -- or even had an interest in knowing the truth.

On Oct. 11, I voted no on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptor. Most of my colleagues could not.

The writer is a former Democratic senator from Florida. He is currently a fellow at Harvard University's Institute of Politics.

Notice the presidents BALD FACE LIE! Nuclear material that
"was being provided from Africa to Iraq" had already been put down as untrue by Ambassador Wilson, which there are those on trial for leaking his CIA undercover wife, Valerie Plames name!

Any claim that the Congress voted on evidence provided in good faith is a lie, and they would NEVER have voted that way if Bush had provided them with the "truth"!!.

Answer 3

The US Congress has continued to demonstrate its lack of backbone by "delegating" one of its specific powers, namely declaring war. Congress passed the "War Powers Act", which most of them apparently believe let's them off the hook when it comes to waging war.

They refuse to declare war, and they refuse to stop the president from waging it. Why do we need Congress? They allow the President to make law by executive order, even though the Constitution says the all legislative power is in the Congress.

There certainly is a difference. Either we are a nation of laws, or we are a nation of men. Either government follows the law, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, or they make up the law as they go along.

We have inflating federal reserve notes, even though the Constitution says that no state shall make anything but gold and silver a tender for payment. So why do we have a Congress? Of what use are they?

Answer 4

Both cause you can't just invade a country and not use force or you'd just be standing there looking at them. If you invade a country you have to show some kind of force or they get really mad at ya! It wouldn't matter but now that elections are comming up the Democrats who 'gave permission' are now trying to deny it and say they are against the war.

Answer 5

There is difference. What would have mattered is if they had passed a declaration of war. Congress being congress for about the 5 billionth time they weaseled out of it. I think WWII was the last one they honestly declaired war for. The rest were permissions to use force.

A vote to invade Iraq would have been a declaration of war.

Answer 6

Bush lied to Congress by witholding opposite data, and the prevalent public became as quickly as already whipped right into a frenzy. the human beings on your checklist have been railroaded now no longer the choice course around.

Answer 7

Same difference. The congress knew that Bush was going to use force.

Answer 8

Yes, they did .
Including Clinton, Kerry. Pelosi and other libs.
Saddam violated the ceasefire terms repeatedly and had to be taken down.
He was even given the chance to just leave Iraq, move to another country.

Answer 9

It was an authorization to use force, as bush saw fit. He decided to start the war, and has the sole responsibility for it.

Answer 10

I would say they had us all fooled into thinking Iraq had something to do with 911.