Who Will Hold Them Accountable?

from the best site on the left : CounterPunch

http://www.counterpunch.org/

Iraq: Fool Me Twice

By Col. DAN SMITH

A date to remember will be the night of June 20, 2006.
That's the night Congress was fooled for the second time.
Remember October 2002 and Iraq?

So much has happened since then that it seems like ancient
history.

Or at least that is what the Bush administration would like
to have the public think. One constant theme that emanates
from the White House is that whatever mistakes might have
been made in the past - e.g., the reasons given to justify
going to war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq - that's behind us.
It's "water under the bridge" or maybe "over the
damn" - take your pick.

The latest example of trying to spin this web occurred in
Vienna, Austria on June 21 during a presidential press
conference following the U.S. - European Union summit.
Asked why Europeans in recent opinion polls held the U.S.
in low regard as a force for peace, Bush in effect
discounted the poll results as a perceptual problem for
Europeans. He had made decisions he though best for the
U.S. and the world, and it was simply unfortunate that
Europeans happened not to agree with him.

Besides, that was the past.

So it is. But so too is October 2002 when Congress voted
to surrender to the president its constitutional duties
with regard to declaring war by "empowering" the president
to use any and all means and, at a time of his choosing,
to compel Saddam Hussein to give up the weapons of mass
destruction that the world "knew" he possessed. Bush pushed
the button March 19, 2003, plunging the U.S. into a war in
Iraq that has taken, conservatively, 45,000 - 50,000 Iraqi
lives and killed 2,500 U.S. service members, 226 troops
from other coalition countries, 100 journalists, more than
350 contractors, at a cost nearing $400 billion and that
will generate more than 200,000 totally disabled veterans
(never able to work) for decades to come.

For a number of weeks, congressional Republicans and
administration spokespersons have been setting the stage
with the same poisonous "props" of rogue states, terrorism,
and weapons of mass destruction they used in 2002 against
Iraq. Their apparent goal is to convince the public that
Iran, like Iraq, is a menace to its neighbors, to the U.S.,
and to the world.

Some in the administration have also asserted that the
October 2002 resolution for the use of force against Iraq
was so worded that it remains in force for any contemplated
military action against Iran. That is, the president can
launch a war without getting further congressional assent.

Which gets us to approximately 7: 35 pm the night of June
20, 2006 in the House of Representatives, where
Representative Maurice Hinchey (NY-22) introduced an
amendment to the 2007 Defense Department Appropriations
bill. The amendment reads: "None of the funds made
available in this Act may be used to initiate military
operations against Iran except in accordance with Article
I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States"
(Congressional Record, June 20, 2006, pg. H4300).

The amendment should be superfluous in that it merely
re-affirms the existing constitutional division of powers
between Congress and the president in time of war.
Specifically, except in the event that the U.S. is about
to be attacked or is attacked - at which point the
president can deploy the armed forces to counter imminent
or actual hostilities - the president is to request
Congress' assent to make war, including any attack on Iran.
In commenting on his amendment, Hinchey affirms that its
purpose "is to make sure that none of the funding in this
defense appropriations bill is used to engage in any
military operation against Iran without a full vote of the
Congress of the United States in accordance with the
Constitution of the United States."

Representative Bill Young (FL-10) spoke against the
amendment by reiterating the discredited administration
claim of connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda,
a claim which was used to induce the House to approve the
October 2002 resolution 296-133. Young was rebutted by
Representative Peter Defazio (OR-4) who asked the House to
"stand up for" and reclaim its constitutional powers.

The presiding officer then put the amendment to a "vote"
and declared that the "nays" were in the majority - at
which point Hinchey demanded a roll call vote.

Now at 7:50 pm, most members would not normally be in the
House chamber. Members would be eating dinner or be at
gatherings; many of their staffs would be gone from their
offices, quite unaware that starting after 9:00 pm,
additional roll call votes would be held. Putting these
factors together with the supposition that many Members
were not aware of the exact language of Hinchey's amendment
as they voted - i.e., mistaking the re-affirmation of
Congress' role for an attempt to limit presidential
authority to act to repel an imminent attack - the combined
circumstances produce the defeat of the amendment 158-262
with 12 members (six from each party) not voting.

In October 2002 the White House deceived the Congress and
the public, inducing Congress - in the administration's
interpretation - to abandon its constitutional
responsibilities in matters of war-making.

This "fool me once" has inflicted on the world 39 months
of bloody occupation and war in Iraq.

Now the House has once again, in effect, abandoned its
role in any future decision about the need for and the
wisdom of initiating war in the name of the people they
represent - creating a vacuum the administration will
eagerly fill.

It seems high time that the people call to account those
whose votes against the amendment - 215 Republicans and 47
Democrats - expose the nation to a repeat of October 2002
and its legacy. The United States cannot afford being
"fooled twice" by Congress or the White House.

Nor can the world.

from the best site on the left : CounterPunch

http://www.counterpunch.org/