Bush acknowledges his own criminal tendencies...

[Wordie]

Bush recently said that he would still have invaded Iraq, knowing what he knows now, yet if he had known what we all know now (and I too think he probably did know, but that's a different thread - stay with me here), and had taken us to war solely on that basis, he would have been deliberately in violation of the Congressional Authorization of the war! (Rove shouldn't have let the leash out far enough for Bush to be making extemporaneous comments!)

So Much For That Congressional Authorization

Bush, yesterday:

BUSH: I said I made the right decision. Knowing what I know today, I would have still made that decision.

HUME: So, if you had had this — if the weapons had been out of the equation because the intelligence did not conclude that he had them, it was still the right call?

BUSH: Absolutely.


Ari Fleischer press briefing, March 19, 2003:

Q: The subsequent question I have for you is, the President in his speech two nights ago described the Iraqi threat as one that could be one to five years into the future to obtain either a nuclear weapon or something that could strike us, a non-imminent threat. In the President's mind, is he in this action, setting a precedent that the United States could now act, either preemptively or preventively, depending on how you define it, against a threat that is not an imminent one against the United States?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, here's how the President approaches this. He believes, number one, based on the reviews conducted by the attorneys, that there already exists a legal basis both in international law, as well as in domestic law, for the use of force to disarm Saddam Hussein. And that is also found in Security Council Resolution 678 and 687, as well as 1441. The President also believes that there is a gathering threat from Iraq that with the failure by Saddam Hussein to disarm of his weapons of mass destruction presents a threat to the security of the United States. And therefore, he has come to the conclusion that after exhausting the diplomacy, that military force must be used if Saddam Hussein does not get out of the country.


Bush, certifying to Congress why the invasion needed to start March 19, 2003:

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.

So if Bush now says he would have invaded anyway even if WMDs had been out of the equation based on the intelligence, then what does that say about this certification to Congress, and the alleged continuing threat posed by Iraq?

(This very good catch was made by Steve Soto, at the LeftCoaster)
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/3291

(I remember making a similar point back in 2004, saying that the Authorization only allowed the President to make the decision to go to war in certain limited circumstances, and required a certification that the criteria established by Congress were met...but that too, is a different thread.) :)

(Mods please note: although this post may appear to violate the 4 paragraph rule, much of the material is from public sources, such as the text of the Congressional Authorization for the Iraq war, which would not be copyrighted.)