"Lincoln never would have gone to war in Iraq under these circumstances," said Democrat Mario Cuomo. "He would have fought the war in Afghanistan" rather than diverting the Afghan resources into Iraq. He would have urged President Bush to continue, at least for a while longer, the diplomacy needed to create a coalition with the United Nations to convince Saddam to remove himself from power. And he would never agree with a domestic tax cut that benefits only the top 2 percent of Americans.

Cuomo spoke at a June 9 event at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. to promote his new book, Why Lincoln Matters: Today More Than Ever.

The book seeks to apply the lessons of Lincoln's life and political philosophies to issues currently faced by America, and, more specifically, the Bush administration. The predominant themes focus on America's policies toward the wars on terror and in Iraq, and also tackle such issues as civil liberties, the role of government, religion, race, equal opportunity and global interdependence.

"I am not a Lincoln scholar; I am not a Lincoln historian, but I learned a lot from so much reading about Lincoln," said Cuomo, who previously co-edited the book Lincoln on Democracy. All politicians defer to Lincoln and both major political parties claim him as their own, Cuomo said. Why? Because Lincoln is not just a revered relic, but is relevant.

Nowhere is this more prominent than during the one-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, when the three major New York politicians - Governor George Pataki, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former mayor Rudolph Giuliani - eschewed personal comments and instead all quoted Lincoln. It was this event that first placed the idea in Cuomo's head to write his book, the idea that Lincoln has something to teach America about democracy and liberty, and that now was a time desperate for such advice.

This reverence for Lincoln shows us that what America currently needs is an "overarching grand concept," a vision "worthy of the world's greatest nation," and a president who will give it to us, Cuomo said. Such a vision is lacking in the George W. Bush administration, he contends.

"We haven't got people with big ideas anymore," Cuomo said. That is why everyone now is praising Ronald Reagan, he had big ideas. Reagan was the "antidote to malaise" that formed in the 1970s. "That's what people are so desperate for."

Domestically, Bush has forgotten average people, especially with his tax cuts for the wealthy, Cuomo contends. Lincoln would tell Bush that his tax cuts are wrong, that there is a better way to use a surplus than give it to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, Cuomo said. Instead, Bush should use that money to reduce the deficit, create economic stimulus; invest in training, education and health care; invest in infrastructure, and invest in state and local governments in the form of short-term revenue sharing.

"Lincoln had an aggressive sense of government," Cuomo said. He worked for money for education, for land grants, for roads and other internal improvements. He also felt that labor was superior to capital, and the most important part of society and the society's economy was the individual worker, not the richest 2 percent.

Cuomo insists he is not advancing a welfare state, just as Lincoln, a self-educated and self-made man, would not. The former New York governor called himself a "progressive pragmatist," and said he believes strongly in a philosophy that Lincoln wrote in 1854: "The legitimate object of government is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, for themselves."

Lincoln would tell Bush that government is not the problem, as Reagan believed, but that it is the solution. As Cuomo states in his book, Lincoln believed that government offered possibility, protection, and advancement, and, at its best, would encourage rather than discourage both personal initiative and contributions to the greater community.

Yet nowhere are the Bush administration's shortcomings on leadership more prevalent than in the war on terror, Cuomo said, specifically citing Bush's policy of preemption and his arrogant, unjustified and unilateral decision to invade Iraq.

Cuomo says Lincoln would have abhorred Bush's preemption policy as one "leading to despotism." In his book, he cites part of an 1848 letter Lincoln wrote while he was in Congress opposing the Mexican War to illustrate Lincoln's feeling on such a policy:

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't."

Invading Afghanistan was correct and proper after Sept. 11, but the irresponsible Iraq invasion slyly "caught the slipstream" behind Afghanistan in the war on terror.

"I'm not saying that President Bush lied to America, but I think he was lied to by his advisors," Cuomo said.

Now, America is mired in Iraq, and it is "unrealistic and unfair" to expect us to create democracy there in the foreseeable future, Cuomo said. "If you notice, the Bush administration is no longer saying there will be democracy in Iraq, now they are saying it will be a 'stable government,'" he said.

Yet, even while the Bush administration's plans for Iraq's future remain insecure, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, should wait until after the party convention before really engaging Bush, Cuomo said.

"Right now everyone is watching Bush, not you," Cuomo said when asked what advice he would offer to Kerry. "You're not the game now. It's Bush versus Bush and Bush is losing."

Yet, Kerry will not win the election just because Bush is losing it. People will not remove a president in the middle of a war without sufficient reason. Kerry must convince the country that he would make a better commander-in-chief.

"You must let them feel you," Cuomo advised. "One reason Reagan was so successful was because everybody felt him. You should tell the truth about why you oppose Iraq and about why you opposed Vietnam. You returned from Vietnam sickened and disillusioned by the death and you knew you had to oppose it."

Cuomo said Kerry must overcome his natural reticence. He needs to get angry or shed a tear during the debates, to show himself as real. No one can write that speech for Kerry, Cuomo said, he's got to say it himself in his own words. It must be honest. That's the only way to convince the people.

andy mahan - 9/18/2006

Mr. Severance:
I wasn't aware that Mr. Rumsfeld attempted to define "torture". Can you cite a source that I can inform myself? Further, I would suspect that he would want to interpret "torture" narrowly, not "broadly."

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/30/2004

PS

Or, alternatively, the expression "not to extend beyond the Rio Bravo del Norte", can be read as saying that the ultimate disposition of the area from the Nueces to the Rio Grande will be decided by later negotiation and treaty.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/30/2004

Here are some of the relevant documents, for those interested:

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/republic/velasco-01.html

You will note Article 3 of the Public Treaty:

"The Mexican troops will evacuate the territory of Texas
passing to the other side of the Rio Grande del Norte"

Article 3 and Article 4 of the Secret Treaty:

"He will so prepare matters in the Cabinet of Mexico
that the Mission that may be sent thither by the Govern-
ment of Texas, may be well received, and that by means
of negociations all differences may be settled and
the Independence that has been declared by the
Convention may be acknowledged"


"A treaty of Commerce, Amity and limits will be estab-
lished between Mexico and Texas. The territory of the
latter not to extend beyond the Rio. Bravo del Norte."

Interestingly, the two treaties use the two different names for the same river.

Here's the Congressional Annexation resolution:

http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/two/texannex.htm

As you can see, the borders aren't defined.

When you rationalize the two treaties, it would seem to fix the border at the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo del Norte). The resolution is for annexation of the Republic of Texas, which apparently claimed (by treaty) territory up to the Rio Grande. Mexico, of course, was still claiming all of Texas. A quick trip around the internet will reveal the many sites that still characterize the initial battle as a dispute over the area between the Rio Grande and the Nueces.

Ben H. Severance - 6/29/2004

Richard,

You've certainly delved deeply into the story. My only comments in response are that it is important to keep in mind that Santa Anna repudiated the Velasco treaties. thus, to him and his Centralist friends, it was irrelevant whether the U.S. and Texas regarded the Rio Grande or the Neuces as the proper border. As far as the Mexicans were concerned, Texas was still a province and the Sabine River was the true border between the two Republics. Once again, the territorial reality is in the eye of the beholder. Polk considered the Rio Grande the border following annexation, and though Taylor's army camped along the Neuces, it did so at Corpus Christi, which is on the SOUTHERN side of the river! Anyway, I concede the validity of both sides arguments, even as I prefer Polk's position on the matter. Only a war of some sort could resolve the dispute, and that's just what happened. And throughout, Polk displayed judicious Constitutional interpretations of his often controversial decisions.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/24/2004

I think I figured something out, finally, about the origins of the Mexican-American War.

Seems the first treaty of Velasco (the public one) specified that the Mexican Army would leave Texas and "proceed through" to south of the Rio Grande (or words to that effect). The second (secret treaty) specified that Santa Anna would use his good offices with the Mexican assembly to fix the border at the Rio Grande.

Apparently, the Congressional Resolution that annexed the Republic of Texas did not specify the borders.

One interpretation might be that the first treaty (without explicitly recognizing the border at the Nueces, though perhaps implicitly so), set up a demilitarized zone within Mexico, between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, into which the Mexican army could not advance. Another might be that it fixed the border at the Rio Grande.

August 1845, after the resolution of annexation, but before the acceptance of the annexation by Texas, Polk sent Taylor down to the mouth of the Rio Grande. I think he then went to north of the Nueces, but I'm not sure. The Mexican army advanced after the acceptance by Texas of annexation. They stopped at the Rio Grande. Taylor advanced up to the Rio Grande. The Mexican army sent raiding parties across, killing Americans. Taylor crosses the Rio Grande and destroyed the Mexican army. Polk proclaims American blood shed on American soil, and Congress declares war.

That would explain the Herndon/Lincoln correspondence. With access to only the vague and ambiguous public treaty, some or many thought the border of the Texas republic was the Rio Grande, though historically the territory of Texas in Mexico was north from the Nueces.

In any case, this might explain Lincoln's challenge to Polk to show the spot on American soil where blood was first shed -- arguably, it was in Mexico. In that case, Polk had sent troops into Mexico to repel an invasion, without Congressional approval (Mexico had proclaimed its intent to take Texas, and more) -- presumably thinking it would be wiser to challenge them there rather than wait until they could lay waste to American territory. Lincoln makes the point that any president could use a similar pretext to invade another country, if he had the constitutional power to do so alone.

But without facts on the ground similar to those in Mexico, such a move by a President surely could end up in impeachment. The facts include the Mexican declaration of intent, and the dispatch of an army of over 30,000 to the border area, opposed by an American army of only 4,000. That would seem to suggest the Mexican deployment was not defensive, but signaled an imminent invasion.

Does this hold water? Just wondering.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/24/2004

No apology expected or necessary -- I enjoy learning history.

One last question. My understanding is that the Treaties of Velasco specified the Rio Grande as the southern border of the Republic of Texas. To the extent that we recognized, and then annexed the Republic of Texas, the southern border should be the Rio Grande. In fact, Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande, and killed American soldiers in territory ceded to the Republic Of Texas, and thus annexed by the US.

I don't understand all this stuff about the border with Texas variously being the Nueces or the Rio Grande. Whether the southern border of an area of Mexico called Texas was the Nueces or not, seems irrelevant in a situation where the treaty specified the Rio Grande, and Mexico repudiated the treaty and claimed all of Texas, up to the prior US border.

Now this ain't my backyard, in terms of history, so I might have something wrong here. What is it?

Ben H. Severance - 6/24/2004

Richard,

Regarding Rumsfeld and the "torture" word, I simply find the cabinet's subterfuge over this issue disturbing.

As for your discourse about the Mexican-American War, you needn't apologize, for you make good case. As an assistant editor of the Correspondence of James K. Polk, I enjoy the topic, and wish more Americans were familiar with that diplomatic/military conflict (I am currently working on the 1846 papers--vol. 11 in the series). Polk certainly had every right to defend U.S. territory regardless of whether Congress declared war or not. Frankly, Taylor's operations along the Rio and into northern Mexico could have gone on for years without formal hostilities. Scott's overland campaign against Mexico City, and the various expeditions into California and New Mexico, however, definitely required the imprimatur of Congressional approval.

As far as the disputed claims are concerned, that is a matter of perspective, with both Mexico and the U.S. presenting valid arguments. Texas won its independence and soon realized that lasting security could only come by joining the Union. Mexico never acknowledged the legitimacy of the Texas Republic, and so objected to the proposed U.S. offer of annexation (which was an act of war from its standpoint). Polk took no military action until it was clear that both Texas and Congress would go through with annexation, then in the summer of 1845 he dispatched Taylor's army.

All the while, Polk hoped to placate Mexico by purchasing what is now the American southwest. The offer of as much as $30 million was tempting to President Herrara, a Federalist who believed that Mexican control over its northern provinces was tenuous and that the country would do better without them (keep in mind that Mexico faced numerous rebellions in the 1830s and 1840s; Texas was simply the most prominent and successful uprising). Paredes, a Centralist, considered such negotiations dishonorable and dangerous to the integrity of Mexican sovereignty. He toppled the Herrera government and took a militant stand against the U.S.

Polk considered Paredes a usurping upstart who had ruined what had been peaceful diplomacy. Paredes pursued aggression with the U.S. because it would justify oppressive policies at home and create opportunities for glory abroad. Technically, the Mexicans did start the war, though Polk certainly provided a pretext with Taylor's army, and both sides readily engaged. I think Paredes was expecting the conflict to remain confined to Texas, but unfortunately his army sucked. I know Polk was hoping that a few feat at arms in northern Mexico combined with the fait accomplis in California and New Mexico would force the Centralists to the bargaining table. American success did contribute to Paredes overthrow, but the new leader Santa Anna betrayed Polk's expectations of concessions. When Santa Anna resumed the war, Polk went for the jugular. Incidentally, the capture of Mexico City is the only other time besides the current war in Iraq, when the U.S. deliberately invaded and sacked a foreign capital, a fact most Americans are likely ignorant of.

In reading Polk's letters, I find him to be an extemely intelligent man who displayed an excellent grasp of constitutional law, republican government, and executive power. When I then watch G. Bush in action I am appalled at how inadequate our current president is by comparison. The nation could use a Polk right now, though it's not going to get one with Kerry. An infantile neocon or a mediocre liberal--what a choice! Now its my turn to apologize for being prolix and perhaps didactic. Thanks for the dialogue.

BHS

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/23/2004

Two points, Ben.

1. I take it you're not encouraging support for Rumsfeld's purported definition of torture, nor the more general proposition that words mean whatever one might choose them to mean. If that's the case, I would think your warning would be more usefully addressed to Adam.

2. I accept that there is a debate on whether any Congressional resolution is sufficient for war. Further, if it is accepted that a resolution can be sufficient, there is still a debate whether the Iraq adventure meets the terms of the resolution (though it was so broadly phrased...). What I don't accept is the purported parallelisms upon which Cuomo pretends to rely -- Lincoln was denying that Polk had, as a matter of constitutional interpretation, the legitimate power to send troops without any authorization of any kind -- that is, on a whim. The analogy fails, and Cuomo's use, while politically expedient, doesn't pass closer examination.

The discussion betwen Herndon and Lincoln was addressing a question of constitutional interpretation. Herndon had claimed that Polk had the legitimate constitutional power to send troops into Mexico on his say alone, provided it was to repel an imminent attack. The question arose specifically in the context of the troops he did send before any authorization was given by Congress. Was the territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande part of Texas, or part of Mexico? Polk got his declaration on the basis of a claim (disputable) that American blood was shed on American soil.

Was a Mexican attack imminent? What people often don't know (and what I wasn't taught in history class) is that Santa Anna had declared that US annexation of Texas would be tantamount to a declaration of war. In fact, Mexico claimed Texas (whatever the border) as its own. When Mariano Paradas came to power, he declared his intention to attack the US, and even to occupy New Orleans and Mobile. To that end, he sent a force to the Rio Grande at least six times the size of Zachary Taylor's force -- was this to defend Mexico south of the Rio Grande? I don't think so. In fact, at the time, Polk was severely criticized for sending down a defensive force that was sure to get massacred.

So what we have is the US claiming a disputable piece of land between the Nueces and the Rio Grande (Mexico had the better argument there, probably), and Mexico claiming all of Texas, and further claiming that annexation of Texas was an act of war, and further declaring that it intended to attack the US and occupy New Orleans and Mobile. The configuration of forces suggests that this was not a dispute over a border area at all.

Please excuse my irrelevant excursus on the subject of the Mexican-American War. I just get a kick out of what my politically correct history textbook left out of the narrative.

Ben H. Severance - 6/23/2004

Mr. Mahan,

In my view, the whole so-called "torture memo" business implicates Rumsfeld and the Defense Department (as well as Ashcroft and the Justice Department) in redefining the meaning of torture. [see for instance, Larry Everest's 15 June 2004 article titled, "Pentagon's Green Light to Torture" on ZNET]

However, what I was specifically referring to Rumsfeld's dismissal of what happened at Abu Ghraib as "abuse" not "torture." After this awkward display of legalistic semantics, he then opted not to discuss further the "torture word." [see DOD Operations Briefing of 4 May 2004].

You are quite right to clarify my statement. Rumsfeld, and the entire Bush Administration for that matter, is indeed "narrowly" defining torture in such a way as to excuse the Abu Ghraib travesty, among other questionable conduct (e.g., treatment of Gitmo detainees).

Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach - 6/23/2004

I am pleased to see some consistancy in your opinion.

Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach - 6/23/2004

Perhaps my former posts were not clear. I shall be more explicit:
The following is the dictionary definitions, followed by my explanation of why the term still applies.

a. decided by ONE party: decided or acted on by ONLY ONE involved party or nation irrespective of what the others do

The United States made it clear that it would invade Iraq regardless of what anyone else does. The fact that Britain and a few others have tagged along does not change this fact. The decision to go to war was decided by ONE party: The United States. You are right, the next part of this definition does not seem to conform, so let us more on to the next definition of unilateral.

PS: The following represents your international force, in number of troops:
US: 135,000
UK: 8,700
Poland: 2,400

b. accounting for ONE side only: taking into account ONLY ONE side of a subject

The United States did exactly this, it accounted for only its side, without listening to anyone else. Remember the “with us or against us” rhetoric towards the rest of the world. Hence this definition probably conforms the most to the what has happened, but let us look at the third definition of unilateral, shall we?

c. binding ONLY ONE party: binding or at the insistence of ONLY ONE party to a contract, obligation, or agreement

To the best of my knowledge, there is no treaty between the United States and anyone else stipulating their support. In other words, unlike the first Gulf War, in which a UN resolution explicitly obligated nations to help, and unlike the defensive alliances in the past, no party is obligated to by with us in Iraq. Furthermore, those that are there are there primarily “at the insistence” of the United States.


For the record however, the preceding argument was solely for your benefit. To me, the term “unilateral” is a political term, just as the term “war” v. “conflict,” and many other words. In the real world, these terms are used by policymakers all the time with difference usages. It is my contention that the word “unilateral” in fact has many different meanings, a contention that you dismiss out of hand. However, even if it only has a dictionary definition, I believe I have illustrated how the argument could be made to support its use in the current case.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/23/2004

Rumsfeld doesn't get to roll his own definition of torture, any more than Humpty Dumpty can roll his own definition of 'glory' -- or adam can roll his own definition of 'unilateral'.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/23/2004

Let's summarize things here:

1. You defended Cuomo's use of 'unilateral' with the following statements:

"The extent to which something is unilateral depends on how one defines it, just as bilateral may involve more than two countries. I define unilateral to mean that, unlike say the first Gulf War, this one was waged almost entirely by the United States." (your post of 6/21/04, 9:54 PM)

2. I contend, on the other hand, that words have meanings beyond the reach of your assent or dissent. In particular, there is no part of any accepted definition of 'unilateral' that would suggest the concept of 'almost entirely' one. Unilateral seems to be, like pregnancy, a discrete term -- you are or you ain't.

3. You offer the following three definitions from a dictionary:

a. decided by ONE party: decided or acted on by ONLY ONE involved party or nation irrespective of what the others do

b. accounting for ONE side only: taking into account ONLY ONE side of a subject

c. binding ONLY ONE party: binding or at the insistence of ONLY ONE party to a contract, obligation, or agreement
[emphases added by me]

Perhaps I need a trip to the eye doctor, but for the life of me I can't see any reference to 'almost entirely' by one anywhere in the definitions you offered. In fact, they seem to be quite specific on this point, as they say not just 'one', but 'only one'.

So my point is not that the definitions don't count, but that they do indeed count, they just don't support your contention or Cuomo's.

On the last definition, if Cuomo is complaining about our Iraq military venture as unilateral, then he is complaining that it is binding on just one party -- the US. Is he complaining that Bush and Congress have not, by the passage of the resolution supporting the war, legally bound other parties to the enterprise? That seems not a criticism of unilateralism in the non-legal sense, but an endorsement of world rule by the US. Obviously, Cuomo didn't intend the third definition when he made his statement.

I'm not sure where the ambiguity enters, that you seem to see so well, with the meaning of 'only one'.

Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach - 6/22/2004

Thank you Ben, for the point.

Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach - 6/22/2004

What an odd statement. I provide you with a dictionary definition, you claim that those definitions don't count, and then you say that I cannot make up my own definition. Ok.

Ben H. Severance - 6/22/2004

Mr. Kipper,

Your opening sentences ring true. I recall Cuomo being somewhat mystified in 1988 when the Democrats rallied around Dukakis instead of him. And I recollect that Cuomo, or at least his staff, kicking themselves for not running in 1992. They believed Bush Sr. had the election wrapped up, leaving the field to Clinton. Since then Cuomo drifts about reminding people of what he might have been. Recently, his demeanor is suggestive of someone who deeply regrets the political opportunties he missed. Perhaps his lightweight study of Lincoln is as much about making himself relevant as it is to make Lincoln relevant.

Ben H. Severance - 6/22/2004

I have two comments to make regarding your ongoing debate with Adam Moshe. 1) At one point you criticize Adam for his broad definition of "unilateral" and even compare it to Clinton's ridiculous "is" definition. Are you also prepared to denounce Rumsfeld for his tortured definition of the word "torture"? The Defense Secretary is certainly interpreting that word very broadly. 2) You discuss Lincoln's letter to Herndon about Polk going to war with Mexico. Lincoln may have objected to the war, but President Polk did request and receive a formal declaration of war, without which the war would have been confined to some border skirmishes along the Rio Grande and never unfolded into the cross country invasion and conquest of Mexico City that it became. Bush only received a resolution approving unspecified military action. By conquering Iraq, Bush acted outside the bounds of the Constitution in waging a full-scale war that he was never authorized to conduct (and yet he magically "declared" an end to that same war, which I believe is still going on). In this sense, his administration may not have acted on a whim, but it has done what it wants to regardless of the consequences.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/22/2004

And I contend that Cuomo fails on all three definitions you provide, and neither you nor Cuomo are entitled to roll your own definition.

Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach - 6/22/2004

Your entire argument rests on semantics, which I have responded to by providing a semantic defense. Let us remember what we are debating here. Cuomo (and myself) accuse the administration of acting unilaterally against Iraq. You claim that such a statement is absurd and a blatant lie of a term with universally accepted meaning and implication.

Your defense of rejecting a claim is falling on deaf ears, since I do not challenge your right to believe that Bush acted multilaterally, not have I. I simply contend that I disagree and that such disagreement is as valid and legitimate as your opinion.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/22/2004

My point is not that a geometrical definition applies in all spheres of usage, but that even your preferred dictionary definitions don't do the work necessary to make Cuomo's claim a legitimate criticism of Bush. For, using the latter definition, Cuomo's complaint then becomes that the decision of Bush and the Congress is binding on only one party. Were he complaining that the decisions of the US were binding only on the US, then that really would be an example of unilateralism gone amok. I don't imagine that Cuomo was complaining about that. Using the second definition doesn't do the job either, as you now have to equate "took counsel" with "dependent on". That just won't do. I don't address definition one since, well, Britain, Poland, etc., were there right by us, and we didn't decide for them.

Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach - 6/22/2004

1) "Simply, bare-faced false. We took counsel from Britain."

You really believe that? I do not. Britain was our ally and went to war with us, but I know of no evidence in which our military plans, strategic offensives, or tactical maneuvers were dependent on British support and cooperation. Thus, it is not bare-faced false. Why are you unable to conceptualize differences in opinion, and simply insist that anything that does not conform to your understanding is not only false, but deceitful. I am not making this stuff up, I would add.

2) "Similarly, your point three fails to find purchase. The last definition is a legal one. Are you seriously suggesting that Cuomo is complaining that our Congressional Iraq resolution only bound the US? Is he suggesting that US Congressional resolutions should bind third parties? I don't think even Cuomo is that stupid, but if you insist"

Richard, what in the world are you talking about? You asked how the dictionary definition conforms to my own, and I have told you quite explicitly. Now you suggest that it doesn't count somehow? After offering a geography term as an example of definitional usage? I am starting to believe that reality is only what exists in your mind, with everything else being lies and deception.

3) "Cuomo uses Lincoln's argument against letting Polk go to war WITHOUT Congressional authorization, as a club to attack Bush who went to war WITH Congressional authorization. You may quibble whether or not a binding congressional resolution provides the legal empowerment necessary to go to war. Fine. That certainly wasn't Lincoln's point."

I do not dispute anything you have said above. It is all true.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/22/2004

"The United States decided to go to war with Iraq without the impute or council [sic] of any other country."

Simply, bare-faced false. We took counsel from Britain. Similarly, your point three fails to find purchase. The last definition is a legal one. Are you seriously suggesting that Cuomo is complaining that our Congressional Iraq resolution only bound the US? Is he suggesting that US Congressional resolutions should bind third parties? I don't think even Cuomo is that stupid, but if you insist ...

Cuomo uses Lincoln's argument against letting Polk go to war WITHOUT Congressional authorization, as a club to attack Bush who went to war WITH Congressional authorization. You may quibble whether or not a binding congressional resolution provides the legal empowerment necessary to go to war. Fine. That certainly wasn't Lincoln's point.

Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach - 6/22/2004

A few points of disagreement.

1) "You say: both that "...unilateral depends on how you define it" and "I define unilateral ..."

1) "This bears suspicious resemblance to Clinton's pronouncement "it depends on what the meaning of is, is". Words have meanings beyond the capacity of you, or me, to supplant them by fiat. For example, a quadrilateral has four sides, even if one side is significantly larger than any of the other two. Unilateral means one-sided. Period."

There is a flaw in your argument: you have offered a mathematical (or geometrical) term and are trying to compare it with a political term. Tell me, what is justice? What does Democracy mean? Are the definitions universally accepted and there exists only one, or does it depend on what the context of the statement is? I tend to believe in the latter.

2) "I defy you to cite even a dictionary that defines unilateral as meaning "almost entirely" one."

And I defy to you show me a dictionary that does not include democracy or justice. In any event, here is what the dictionary has to say:
Unilateral:
1. decided by one party: decided or acted on by only one involved party or nation irrespective of what the others do

2. accounting for one side only: taking into account only one side of a subject

3. binding only one party: binding or at the insistence of only one party to a contract, obligation, or agreement

(1) The United States decided to go to war with Iraq without the impute or council of any other country. Personally, I find the #3 definition to be particularly fitting. So you see my friend, even based on your dictionary definition, the United States still acted unilaterally. That is my opinion. You may disagree, as I assume you will, but that only confirms my original point which is that political terms are interpreted differently by different people.

3) "As for on a whim ("at pleasure"), you seem to define away the meaning based on your view of political psychology that effectively absolves everybody else of responsibility for their votes."

How so? I hold every person accountable for their vote, including John Kerry. However, this does not change the fact that Bush went to war with Iraq on (in my opinion and that of others) a whim.

4) "In fact, Lincoln's letter is responding to Herndon's letter claiming that Polk had a constitutional power to invade Mexico WITHOUT Congress' permission, if it was to repel an invasion. That is the meaning of whim in the context of Lincoln's letter, and it doesn't apply to our current situation, even by analogy. In fact, Lincoln is arguing for responsibility in voting."

All of that means nothing to me. The words are Lincoln's and thus the message is clear. If you do not consider it to be analogous, that is fine because nothing is perfectly analogous. Mexico is not Iraq, and Santa Anna is not Saddam Hussein. Certainly, the timing, justification, media coverage, etc. was very different. None of this changes Lincoln's quote in any way, shape or form, nor does it change the intent of Lincoln's words: The president should not be allowed to decide when we go to war. I am perfectly content to condemn Congress for letting him do so.

5) "Moreover, the use made of it by Cuomo is simply illegitimate -- not Bush, nor anyone else that I know of, have argued like Herndon that Bush has power to invade without Congressional approval."

Really? I would recommend catching up on your history. No war since WWII have Congress declared war, and no president has accepted the war powers act. Although some presidents (like Bush I and Bush II) have decided to go to Congress, neither, nor any other president has ever acknowledged that they had to. Exactly the opposite in fact.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/26/bush.iraq/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/29/cheney.iraq/index.html

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/22/2004

I should have said "significantly larger than even any other two sides." (there being four sides to a quadrilateral, not more or less four sides).

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/21/2004

A few points of disagreement. You say: both that "...unilateral depends on how you define it" and "I define unilateral ..." This bears suspicious resemblance to Clinton's pronouncement "it depends on what the meaning of is, is". Words have meanings beyond the capacity of you, or me, to supplant them by fiat. For example, a quadrilateral has four sides, even if one side is significantly larger than any of the other two. Unilateral means one-sided. Period. Here's a take from Lewis Carroll:

'There's glory for you!' 'I don't know what you mean by "glory", Alice said. 'I mean, "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'" 'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument"', Alice objected. 'When I use a word', Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less'.

I defy you to cite even a dictionary that defines unilateral as meaning "almost entirely" one.

As for on a whim ("at pleasure"), you seem to define away the meaning based on your view of political psychology that effectively absolves everybody else of responsibility for their votes.

In fact, Lincoln's letter is responding to Herndon's letter claiming that Polk had a constitutional power to invade Mexico WITHOUT Congress' permission, if it was to repel an invasion. That is the meaning of whim in the context of Lincoln's letter, and it doesn't apply to our current situation, even by analogy. In fact, Lincoln is arguing for responsibility in voting. Moreover, the use made of it by Cuomo is simply illegitimate -- not Bush, nor anyone else that I know of, have argued like Herndon that Bush has power to invade without Congressional approval. Here's the letter:

TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON.

WASHINGTON, February 15, 1848.

DEAR WILLIAM:--Your letter of the 29th January was received last night. Being exclusively a constitutional argument, I wish to submit some reflections upon it in the same spirit of kindness that I know actuates you. Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is that if it shall become necessary to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of another country, and that whether such necessity exists in any given case the President is the sole judge.

Before going further consider well whether this is or is not your position. If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken. Their only positions are--first, that the soil was ours when the hostilities commenced; and second, that whether it was rightfully ours or not, Congress had annexed it, and the President for that reason was bound to defend it; both of which are as clearly proved to be false in fact as you can prove that your house is mine. The soil was not ours, and Congress did not annex or attempt to annex it. But to return to your position. Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,--I see no probability of the British invading us"; but he will say to you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. Write soon again.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.


I'm not sure what you mean about the necessity of making a normative judgment about the Founding fathers. To Scalia, the Founding Fathers are irrelevant. In fact, one can't make a normative judgment about them, as a group, or as a corporate author, since there is no evidence they shared a common interpretation. The record is incomplete and insufficient, and anyways they didn't have plenary power. They proposed an uninterpreted text, and that uninterpreted text was ratified, the understanding of the ratifiers being similarly underdetermined.

That leaves interpreting it by the meanings attached to the terms in contemporaneous documents and proceedings -- a much larger pool to draw on (besides the meanings of words just are the semantic center of gravity attached to them by a culture, not the intent of a few). Of course the meanings of words in 1787 don't determine the meanings of later amendments -- those are, by Scalia's lights, similarly determined by the meanings of the terms at those times, as revealed by usage in legal practice.

John Stephen Kipper - 6/21/2004

He did try for higher office. He just failed to excite anyone, had no support and dropped in oblivion. Too bad he didn't stay there.

His analysis of what Lincoln would do is an impressive piece on non-sensical presentism. Lincoln of universal health care. How foreign to the nineteenth century. Lowering taxes on the poor? He established the first income tax to pay for the war. Building an international consensus, he totally ignored the French and the British and thier legitimate concerns over their investments and trade with the South.

Lincoln's main concern, indeed his only concern, was the preservation of the Union and he frequently broke establsihed law and precedent in order to achieve this noble goal. He confiscated property, ignored habeus corpus, dissolved the Maryland legislature, overrode the Supreme Court and established an illegal blockade. Sounds like a neocon to me.

Licoln was a pragmitist and a driven man. Thank God he succeeded.

As for Cuomo's unfounded conjectures on where Lincoln would stand on today's issues, this is a flagrant violation of historiography, presentism at its worst. And often factual untrue. Lincoln had no qualms about establishing an income tax to finance the war. He sent Federal troops to New York to end the draft riots. As for universal health care, he had no cenception of it. These idea had to wait for a hundred years to be thought of.

I understand Cuomo's motivation in all this. It is much like the faded TV sitcom star who is relegated to opening malls and car lots in order to get his face and name in front of the public after his slide from fame. Although I doubt that Mario needs the money to put food on the table, I do thing that he is feeding his ego.

My real question is this: Did the author write this article as a reporter, documenting that Cuomo said this words, or was he presenting a case to validate the ex-governor's thoughts? Inquiring minds want to know.

Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach - 6/21/2004

1) "To the extent that clergy claim to know what Jesus would say about, say, global warming, then I part with them. When they stick to the text and what it implies, then I can see that. Cuomo does the former. I reject his "argument" that anything Lincoln said implies an endorsement for revenue-sharing."

Fair enough. All I am saying is that every preacher I have ever heard tells his congregates what the Bible says about, say, abortion, or the United States, or breast implants, and other issues for which the Bible says little or nothing about. I do not fault them for this, or every other political leader and layman that attempts to extrapolate contemporary judgements from historical figures. I know for a fact that Wilson and FDR often evoked the Founders and what they claim the Founders wanted, and I would wager so did most other leaders. However, may reject them all as liars if you like.

2) "In fact, at leat two of Cuomo's claims are dishonest on their face. The invasion of Iraq was not unilateral, and it did not rest on the whim of Bush -- he sought and gained Congressional approval. Those two claims are not simply a matter of opinion. They are lies."

I disagree, and thus believe that they are not lies. The extent to which something is unilateral depends on how one defines it, just as bilateral may involve more than two countries. I define unilateral to mean that, unlike say the first Gulf War, this one was waged almost entirely by the United States. Very little money, troops, or even moral support was given to us, and almost none if you remove the threat of political retaliation or the incentive of bribes. Even in those countries that did support us, NONE of them had a majority of citizens favoring the war, and most of the populations were wholeheartedly against it. Thus, I agree with Cuomo, the war was unilateral, based on my understanding of the term.

As for the "whim" of Bush, I agree with that also. Bush convinced the public to support a war based on certain claims we need not dive into now. He called for a vote right before the elections, knowing that no politician could vote against war in light of the political atmosphere. Just because Bush could not go to war without the acquiescence of Congress, that does not mean that ultimately, the decision rested on him and him alone to decide.

3) "Actually, Scalia doesn't refer to intent of the Founding Fathers. In fact, he has written extensively on the impossibility of deriving the law from legislative history. He is a textualist, who when he ventures into originalism, subscribes to interpreting troublesome passages on the basis of original legal practices to establish the meanings of terms and texts."

You are quite correct however it is not possible to be an originalist and not make a normative judgement about the Founding Fathers. For example, if someone says that the Constitution means whatever it meant in 1786, they are making a normative judgement, especially since some of the most (arguably) important amendments came after the Civil War. Thomas Jefferson wanted the Constitution to be changed every generation, while others included the amendment process for a reason.

In any event, I have little interest in opening up a debate on originalism. I am content to simply withdraw my above comments and stick with my main point, which is that, in politics, as well as in history, many, many, many people do exactly what you so severely chide Cuomo for doing. If you believe them ALL to be liars, so be it. I do not.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/21/2004

I'm going to have to insist on the distinction between asking a question and making a categorical claim. To the extent that clergy claim to know what Jesus would say about, say, global warming, then I part with them. When they stick to the text and what it implies, then I can see that. Cuomo does the former. I reject his "argument" that anything Lincoln said implies an endorsement for revenue-sharing.

In fact, at leat two of Cuomo's claims are dishonest on their face. The invasion of Iraq was not unilateral, and it did not rest on the whim of Bush -- he sought and gained Congressional approval. Those two claims are not simply a matter of opinion. They are lies.

Actually, Scalia doesn't refer to intent of the Founding Fathers. In fact, he has written extensively on the impossibility of deriving the law from legislative history. He is a textualist, who when he ventures into originalism, subscribes to interpreting troublesome passages on the basis of original legal practices to establish the meanings of terms and texts.

Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach - 6/21/2004

I would suggest reading almost any Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Scalia. He almost always refers to the intent of the Founding Fathers, speculating on what they would think of a contemporary issue. Most scholars consider it legitimate interpretation that warrents debate.

I can only assume you would call it stupid and dishonest.

Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach - 6/21/2004

Richard,
I am not sure how you could call it dishonest when the book is an admitted interpretation.

However, if you would like to call dishonest everyone who askes WWJD, and suggests an answer (this included every clergyman I have ever heard), than that is fine, so long as you are consistant.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/21/2004

The idea that Cuomo, or anybody else, can channel the thoughts of Lincoln into contemporary terms is well, silly. It may reflect Cuomo's opinion, but that doesn't add intellectual lustre to a silly enterprise. In fact let's call it what it is -- it's a dishonest claim, just as it would be dishonest if I were to claim to be able to speak (so to speak) for Jesus. Get it? It ain't just stupid, though indeed it is stupid. It is dishonest.

Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach - 6/21/2004

Richard,
Your post is nothing but a petty attack against Cuomo. If you disagree with his interpretation (as he freely admits is simply that), by all means, talk about how and why Lincoln would have done exactly what Bush did, and guess what? It will be impossible for anyone to dispute unless they attack you, as you have Cuomo. It is a matter of political opinion based on the character and writings of an individual. Some people wonder what Jesus would do, others, what would Washington think had he been president during Pearl Harbor- who knows? What I can tell you is that each and every point you bring us is controversial, and requires far more than the silly diatribe you offer in defense of Bush.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/21/2004

Feel better now, Michael? But tell me, what does Cuomo learn from Lincoln that he can put to use regarding Lincoln's frequent references to "darkies", and worse? Or his belief that blacks should be shipped back to Africa -- or off to my neck of the woods in Florida, first surveyed by a Lincoln Commissioner looking for a dumping ground for blacks. Or pray tell, what did Cuomo learn from Lincoln's endorsement of Sherman's total war concept (bringing it to the civilians)? How do we apply that in Afghanistan?

The entire Cuomo effort here is just what you would expect from a second-rate politician and a third-rate mind.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/20/2004

"Abraham Lincoln never would condone President George W. Bush's arrogant and unilateral foreign policy ..."

You mean like when that foreign policy sophisticate, Lincoln, announced a blockade of the South, rather than an embargo? And please supply an example of international cooperation exercised by Lincoln.

"Lincoln never would have gone to war in Iraq under these circumstances," said Democrat Mario Cuomo. "He would have fought the war in Afghanistan" rather than diverting the Afghan resources into Iraq."

Brilliant, except for which war is he talking about? How exactly is fighting "the" war in Afghanistan going to address the command and control elements of al Qaeda on the border, who can jump back and forth into and out of Afghanistan from Pakistan? It would be nice if, pace Cuomo, al Qaeda would stay put in Afghanistan, but they obviously didn't get Cuomo's message. Too bad the brilliant military mind of Cuomo is denied our armed forces.



"The book seeks to apply the lessons of Lincoln's life and political philosophies to issues currently faced by America ..."

An assumption in such of an argument.

"I am not a Lincoln scholar; I am not a Lincoln historian ..."

He should have stopped there, while he was ahead.

"Nowhere is this more prominent than during the one-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, when the three major New York politicians - Governor George Pataki, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former mayor Rudolph Giuliani - eschewed personal comments and instead all quoted Lincoln."

Gee, wouldn't that suggest that Lincoln is a great grab-bag, from which politicians at opposite ends of the spectrum can borrow?



"This reverence for Lincoln shows us that what America currently needs is an "overarching grand concept," a vision "worthy of the world's greatest nation," and a president who will give it to us, Cuomo said. Such a vision is lacking in the George W. Bush administration, he contends."

Blah, blah, blah. I won't be needing a sleeping pill tonight.

"We haven't got people with big ideas anymore," Cuomo said."

I guess that explains why John Lewis Gaddis of Yale wrote an article proclaiming Bush the most innovative grand strategist as President in recent history.

"Domestically, Bush has forgotten average people, especially with his tax cuts for the wealthy, Cuomo contends. Lincoln would tell Bush that his tax cuts are wrong, that there is a better way to use a surplus than give it to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, Cuomo said. Instead, Bush should use that money to reduce the deficit, create economic stimulus; invest in training, education and health care; invest in infrastructure, and invest in state and local governments in the form of short-term revenue sharing."

Really? I'd like to see Lincoln's thoughts on revenue sharing. Really. I'm waiting.


"Lincoln would tell Bush that government is not the problem, as Reagan believed, but that it is the solution."

This, right after saying that government should do only what it can do better.

"Yet nowhere are the Bush administration's shortcomings on leadership more prevalent than in the war on terror, Cuomo said, specifically citing Bush's policy of preemption and his arrogant, unjustified and unilateral decision to invade Iraq."

Except that it was approved by Congressional vote, and has more than two dozen allies.


"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure."

Except that he went to Congress.

"Invading Afghanistan was correct and proper after Sept. 11, but the irresponsible Iraq invasion slyly "caught the slipstream" behind Afghanistan in the war on terror."

Really no explanation there for the difference, Why exactly was it correct and proper?


"Now, America is mired in Iraq ..."

We've been there a little over a year. It's probably a good thing Cuomo wasn't in charge at Valley Forge.

"Yet, even while the Bush administration's plans for Iraq's future remain insecure, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, should wait until after the party convention before really engaging Bush, Cuomo said.

"Right now everyone is watching Bush, not you," Cuomo said when asked what advice he would offer to Kerry. "You're not the game now. It's Bush versus Bush and Bush is losing."

Translation: don't go out on a limb. Events can change quickly in Iraq, and Kerry might have to trim his sails.


"You must let them feel you," Cuomo advised.

Yes, feel you. That's the key. Feelings validate. I'm OK, you're OK. How about a weekend at Esalen? They have naked girls there, I hear.

Yes, all very impressive, with all the substance of a ball of cotton candy. Cuomo has always needed to think himself a deep thinker, and somehow still relevant. Nature hasn't cooperated.

Michael Green - 6/20/2004

I find it fascinating that former Governor Cuomo, who certainly does not hide his political views, presented what he considered a fair interpretation of Lincoln and pointed out even the demerits of the nominee of Mr. Cuomo's party. In turn, the first posted comment simply attacked Mr. Cuomo. I guess that constitutes political discourse now. No wonder Mr. Cuomo never sought a higher office than governor. He would have had to deal with such silliness.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/20/2004

Mario reminds me a lot of Lincoln -- if you can imagine a mediocre, vacillating, oleaginous Lincoln.