Originally Posted by badhatharry
So is the standard a matter of timing? Are you saying that there would have been a different outcome if the vote had taken place closer to the invasion? say February 2003?
I don't know what you mean by "the standard." But my comments in the thread are not about technical legal standards, just about the argument whether Bush seriously "consulted" Congress before decided to attack Iraq. And in that instance, it's not just that the AUMF vote happened 160 days prior to the attack. It's that a major development happened between the vote and the attack -- a UN inspection that came up empty -- and that did not trigger any formal revisiting of the AUMF. If the Bush administration really felt that they could not launch an attack without a real endorsement from Congress, and it returned to Congress for a vote in March 2003 without any WMD found, sure, the outcome could have been different.