Did Kerry cast a vote for war or for giving Bush* authority to make the

[Bandit]

final decisions? I keep hearing all this bullshit that Kerry voted for war. It is my understanding that he along with a large majority voted to give Bush* the authority to use warfare as the final remedy if all else failed. It was with the understanding that Bush* would actually read and understand all of the intelligence concerning the issue and use reasoned judgement. We now know Bush* only read the one page briefing and not the intelligence reports themselves. It wasn't kerry's job to read in full detail all of the intelligence reports, that was Bush*'s responsibility. Kerry was briefed on the reports and considered the issue (as presented) as important. It is Bush*'s sole responibility as he was given complete authority by Congress. Remember at that time Bush* kept saying war was the last option but needed the authority just in case the problem became severe and he would not be able to wait on Congress. Kerry voted in a reasonable manner with the information he had. It was Bush* not Kerry that chose war.

[Gman]

1. Kerry voted to have Bush exhaust all options

including going to the UN before going to war. If you will remember, the UN would not agree to war so Bush did it anyway. Bush did NOT follow the resolution. Kerry could rightfully have expected to have the UN resolve the issue. Bush had other plans.

[robcon]

12. Actually, that's not in the resolution.

The resolution only requires the president to make a "finding," and notify Congress. No permission would be needed other than the resolution.

The misreading of the resolution - that it required anything other than giving Bush a free hand to invade Iraq or not - is pervasive, but untrue.


edit: typo

[wuushew]

2. Congress can be assembled for an emergency vote rather quickly

It would be like the 1940-41 Congress voting FDR the ability to go to war if the tensions worsened to the point of war between October and the end of the year.

Since we controlled the land, air and sea around Iraq completely I don't see what danger any delay would have possed following the outcome of inspections. All the Pro-IWR politicians accomplished was increasing by several orders of magnitude the likelyhood of armed conflict. What's even worse is they don't see the problem in it.

[jjmalonejr]

4. The vote by Congress gave Bush the authority to use force...

...which demonstrated how serious the US was (rightly so) about the issue of WMDs.

Without this vote, Resolution 1441 NEVER would have passed unanimously in the UN. Weapons inspectors NEVER would have been permitted in Iraq. Action by Congress gave Bush the tools he needed to handle the situation responsibly.

Of course, as we now know, he DIDN'T handle it responsibly. Despite his promises of working through the UN, assembling a coalition of our allies, exercising diplomacy, and using force only as a last resort, Bush rushed headlong into conflict, using exaggeration and deception along the way to make his case, and brought us the mess we have today.

Say what you will about the wisdom of Congress ceding war powers authority to Bush (that can be definitely be argued) but I believe that most Democrats in Congress who voted for the use of force resolution (and also a good number of Republicans) hoped that war would truly be a last resort.

This war is the result of Bush's failure of leadership and his betrayal of the trust that Congress and the American people put in him.

[wuushew]

6. Saddam didn't need reminding how powerful the U.S. was

we destroyed his army in 91 and had been constantly trying kill him and bomb his air defense sites for over 10 years.


I mean what would have been the practical consequences of Hussein never complying with American demands? Time would have marched on with the situation either remaining status quo or improving. Hussein like Arafat would have eventually died of at least natural causes.

Most likely leading to incremental improvement in enemity between our two countries similar the gradual lessening of tensions between us in a similar vein to Iran and Syria who have had much fiercer anti-American regimes in the past. For some reason Bush forced the issue in 2002 and we got stuck in a quagmire. Why would the Congress vote for an outcome that had a much higher chance of failure for American goals?

[jjmalonejr]

11. We agree more than we disagree

You're right, Saddam didn't need to be reminded of American power, but I think both Saddam and others needed proof of American WILL on the subject of WMDs. Sadly, what Bush presented was proof of American belligerence...a rap that we definitely did NOT need in the wake of 9/11.

You're correct that, as it turns out, WMD's were not the threat that the NIE implied they were (for many reasons that, in retrospect, we are all well aware of). That assessment grows more and more solid every day, but I think that the suspicions were alarming enough to warrant a serious diplomatic effort to get at the truth. Only a credible threat of force could accomplish that in a multilateral fashion. Remember, there were folks in the White House that wanted to dispense with going to the UN altogether. Congress wouldn't allow that.

Yes, Bush forced the issue and Congress went along, but I don't believe that Congress behaved irresponsibly, Bush did. Had the weapons inspections that were FACILITATED by the credible threat of force been allowed to continue (as most Democrats in Congress wanted them to), we would have got at the truth without a shot being fired.

As you and I both know, Bush wasn't interested in the truth. When things weren't going his way (i.e. Saddam was cooperating, albeit begrudgingly, and the weapons inspectors were finding almost nothing), Bush declared "game over" and launched a premature and ultimately unnecessary invasion.

All I'm saying is that the situation was vastly more complicated than an up or down vote on war. I'm not saying that many of the "yea" votes on the resolution weren't the result of spinelessness, I'm just saying that many in Congress gave serious consideration to their vote and did what they thought was in the best interests of national security.

I believe the chief problem was Bush's betrayal of his ultimate duty as Commander in Chief, not the sincerity of the folks in Congress who gave him such authority.

[wuushew]

15. I agree that many were concerned but that still doesn't explain

why Lugar-Biden was scrapped. Did the politicans that voted against actually agree with the administration? I mean it is pretty clear even to the politically naive that it was a more measured and deliberate course of action to take.

[jjmalonejr]

43. Biden-Lugar was scrapped because the Republicans wouldn't allow it.

You're SOOOO right, Biden-Lugar would have been a much better resolution. I'm not sure what was so threatening about it to them, other than the fact that the White House opposed it so strongly. I think you and I both know why.

Unfortunately, in Congress, you don't always get to vote on the bill or the resolution in exactly the form you wanted it. Sometimes you HAVE to make a tough decision about legislation that you know could be better.

Try explaining the legislative process to the average voter, though, and they ALL look like flip-floppers.

[Steven Leser]

58. You are creating a straw man argument...

The issue was not "telling Saddam/Iraq how STRONG we were" it was an issue of resolve, "We are united and resolved to take action if you don't straighten up and fly right". These types of congressional votes are not altogether uncommon. That is all these votes are. if Bush doesnt think he prevails in the congress with a vote, he has his party withdraw the resolution, and he goes to war anyway. You do understand that much, don't you?

[lovedems]

3. This is BUSH'S war.

Bush and his administration micro-managed everything from the intelligence, the planning, the no-bid contracts, the post war plan, etc. This is his war and he has done a piss poor job. Of course the Bush administration wants to blame congress. It is par for the course! This war is everyone else's fault from the CIA for bad intelligence to congress for voting to give him authority!
Nothing is EVER smirky/snarly's fault...EVER!

[MadHound]

5. Yes, I agree that this is Bush's war

However the Democrats shouldn't have enabled this man by voting for the IWR. In fact, if they were to fulfill their job duties,ie representing the will of their constituency, they wouldn't have voted for the IWR.

Instead they once again lost their will and spine, and bent over for Bushco.

[wadestock]

7. You want to get Senator Byrd's book "Losing America"

He was also on meet the press this week with Russert and made a big deal about how in all his years he's never seen the Senate go so far as to give ONE MAN such a blank check without any caveats attached.

I haven't researched this just yet...but one of Byrd's biggest point was that there should have been a "sunset clause" included.

But generally speaking ....the prelude to vote was a wonderful manipulation by the Bush team....

You see...everyone was caught up in the mindset of Saddam violating UN resolutions and it actually seemed like there might be a number of options to use "force". They were dupped into thinking that Bush has the maturity to use the force "if necessary". I tend to believe them to the extent that no one at the time believed that he would use the vote as a hair trigger decision for ALL OUT BLITZKRIEG WAR and complete destruction of the Iraqi army.

Did anyone really know....who voted....that we were talking an ALL OUT SLAUGHTER?....that would make us look like complete chit throughout the world?....and blitzkrieg like we've never seen in history....over an army that had no capacity whatsoever to resist such a force?

Think of it this way....if they had voted on....

"The 'use of force' will involve the deployment of as powerful a mobile force as can be deployed in order to succeed in crushing the enemy as quickly as possible. In that the enemy has no real resources to wage war against the US, the expected time to destroy every last tank and artillery piece is estimated to be about 1 month total. Following this Blitzkrieg attack and total destruction of the military in Iraq, a large portion of the military will be quickly converted to a full time occupying police force. At the present time, due to the uncertain nature of war and its consequences, we are not completely sure what the aftermath of the war might entail or what rebuilding efforts might be necessary"

[Brotherjohn]

8. The IWR amounted to a THREAT of force, NOT a declaration of war.

It gave the U.S. leverage to get the UN, and Iraq, to agree to allow inspectors in.

Given that there were doubts about their WMDs, I could have bought that as an acceptable tactic. I didn't think it was necessary, as we had them isolated and their military was in the crapper, and they had no alliance with Al Qaeda of any kind (which even the Senate Committe's report says the CIA was right about). But I could buy it, especially after 9-11. We DO have to worry about WMDs a bit more if we are a target of Al Qaeda, who would like nothing more than to get their hands on such weapons.

But for Bush, it was just window dressing. Even after the UN inspectors found NO evidence of a resumed WMD program of any kind, Bush went ahead and invaded anyway. This proved he was only using the UN as cover, and was interested in war all along.

The UN had concluded that Iraq had NOT resumed any nuclear weapons program and likely had no substantial chem or bio program either. Their only questions were the extent to which Iraq could prove whether or not they destroyed all chem/bio weapons from prior to the Gulf War (weapons that were past their shelf life anyway). They were well on their way to verifying Iraq's claims on that issue as well.

If Bush had taken what the UN was telling him and called off the dogs, I could have accepted that. He would have ended up looking downright statesmanlike.

But he didn't. He went to war KNOWING that Iraq was NOT a threat. He knew because the UN told him, and HE himself had asked them to go into Iraq (as he so often likes to point out, when he isn't inexplicably saying that Saddam wouldn't let them in).

Forget what revisionist Bush apologists continue to say to this day, that the "whole world" thought Iraq was a threat, that Iraq had WMDs. These people behave as if the months leading up to the war never happened. That may have been at least partially right BEFORE UN Weapons Inspectors returned to Iraq. But by the time their inspections were under way, and certainly well before we invaded, most of the world knew that Iraq was not the threat the Bush administration continued to paint them as.

It wasn't just the UN evidence, but much evidence from within the intelligence community (even the CIA) was publicly aired which contradicted Bush administration claims. Remember after the evidence began to roll in that Iraq was largely if not completely disarmed, how many people were saying: "Well, they (the Bush admin) must know something we don't"?

Well, they didn't.

[wuushew]

9. The threat of force in itself is not legitimate

We wrote very specific peace terms with Hussein as a result of his military defeat in 1991. Since he was only ignoring the terms of this agreement WITHIN his own country, why should the outside world use military force in this manner? Isn't this an illegal and aggressive use of force that the U.N. renounces in its own claim to existence?

The international community only has the right to intervene in conflicts that involve two or more sovereign countries. The mechanism for dealing with Iraq type situations are passive measures like sanctions not the threat to destroy a leader or government of a country. I mean no one is beating down the door of the United States the only country to ever stockpile and USE nuclear weapons in a conflict.

[Brotherjohn]

10. Oh, I agree. I don't think it was warranted, or merited.

But the IWR also stated that he would exhaust all options through the U.N., which he didn't.

However, if one is to buy the U.N. as having authority (and the cease fire was a U.N. Resolution), then one would have to accept that the U.N. could determine that Iraq was in breach of that cease fire and allow member nations to take further military action against Iraq.

Problem was, while Bush said he would go throught the U.N, and even swore publicly that he would put the specific authorization to use force up to a vote (the "second resolution"), he pulled the resolution when it became clear it would not pass. And he went ahead and invaded anyway.

A "threat" is one thing. One could call it politics, one could call it insane. All I am saying is if Bush had followed the U.N. Resolutions to the letter, this threat could be viewed as merely getting our Congress's approval before going ahead and getting the proper U.N. approval.

But following through on the threat is another thing altogether, especially when you have no U.N. basis (or even practical reason) for invading a sovereign nation.

[robcon]

13. I disagree, Brotherjohn

Brotherjohn wrote "The IWR amounted to a THREAT of force, NOT a declaration of war.

The language of the resolution was clear: if the president wanted to go to war, he did not have to get Congress's permission again.

If that's not a declaration of war/military action by Congress, what is?

[Brotherjohn]

18. I agree given THIS president, that's what it AMOUNTED to.

But in principle, the IWR was putting the gun in Bush's hands. BUSH decided to pull the trigger.

The big problem is that Congress gave up their right to "declare war" in this instance, something they should never have done and that is arguably unconstitutional.

[killbotfactory]

20. That's what I don't get, he already had the threat of force

And presidents are allowed to commit "military actions" for a certain amount of time without congressional approval. If we were strictly after WMD's, the IWR is superfluous. He could have sent in tomahawks and fighters to bomb all the suspected sites. It would have been relatively cheap compared to the invasion.

We didn't need to wage war on Iraq, conquer the country, and depose Saddam to remove the threat of WMD's, or get Saddam to comply.

[Brotherjohn]

27. Of course, he didn't really NEED it. He was just trying to strong-arm...

... the U.N. into authorizing an full-scale invasion, because he knew it would be hard to sell otherwise (and he didn't go to the U.N. until a clamor arose that we should do so, AFTER he was already rattling his sabre).

Congress rolled over, but the U.N. didn't.

I can accept that people in Congress who voted for it bear a certain amount of responsibility for not being more cautious and not checking the facts themselves a bit more. But they could only do so much. They were, in large part, at the mercy of what the administration told them. And most of what we ended up finding out about the LACK of a threat came later after the UN Inspectors were getting their work done. And one could argue that Bush did NOT follow neither the letter nor the intent of the IWR.

As you point out, though, and as history has shown us, occassional strikes (and sanctions) are now known to have been successful in containing Iraq and preventing the resumption of WMD programs. I felt as much before, as did many of us.

[killbotfactory]

36. There were so many red flags flying around the time...

It was like the Bush administration was a fast-talking used car salesmen who promised us everything and more, and then only later everyone realizes they sold us a lemon.

I think the IWR was the wrong thing to do, but there was plenty of time leading up to the war where anyone voting for it could have denounced Bush's invasion and the actions taken by the administration up until the bombing began. I wish Kerry/Edwards would have when Bush bypassed the UN, cut short inspections, massed troops on Iraq's border, and then invaded without ever proving Iraq was an imminent threat... but they didn't. Them's the breaks.

[Brotherjohn]

38. I agree with your post 100%. n/t

[democratreformed]

50. What a sig line!

It's the perfect message. It describes exactly how I feel. I do love America and I want to see my country gain back its lost respect.

[Brotherjohn]

61. Thanks. I came up with it back when news was getting out that Freepers...

... were quoting us here and there to "prove" how much we "hate" America.

[dennis4868]

14. Didn't the IWR....

also state that within 48 hours after an attack of Iraq that Bush would have to show proof to congress that Iraq was indeed a threat and was involved in 911....and he did not....this was all stated very clearly in John Dean's book called, WORSE THAN WATERGATE.

Am I right here?

[wuushew]

17. He got out of the noose by picking and choosing from the following list

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

[dennis4868]

22. I don't think he got out of the noose....

he went to war and did not present to congress within 48 hours after attacking Iraq why it was necessary...Bush never proved to Congress that Iraq was a threat or had a connection to 911....read John Dean's book! Bush's follow-up to congress after the war was a joke and presented nothing new and nothing of substance as sectiob b requires if Bush uses the armed forces!

[democratreformed]

53. Here is the out:

"is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;"

That's why they kept harping on all those OLD UN resolutions.

[welshTerrier2]

23. the key phrase in the IWR is:

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate

that, regardless of any other language, is the "blank check" that Congress gave bush ...

[dennis4868]

24. WRONG....

read John Deans Book...it was NOT a blank check because of this:

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Bush never met the requirements of this!

[Steven Leser]

30. Dennis, I almost think it is a lost cause...

...the other issue that many of these folks are intent on ignoring is the personal assurances given not just to Democratic, but Repuke legislators by Dumbya regarding his courses of action. I know, a lot of you will fire back with..."But you can't trust..." Yeah, well,as much as you distrust someone, you cannot govern for four years voting your distrust. People who click on the link I gave will read the whole story, but I offer this parable I wrote for those who dont intend to "click"

You go to the dentist because you have a toothache. The dentist says the tooth might have to be pulled, would that be OK? You say, you will only be OK with that if the dentist exhausts other options, such as filling the tooth, or crowning it, and if he needs to extract it, that he has the necessary surgical staff assisting him and clean surgical tools. Upon hearing this, the dentist knocks you out with a sedative and pulls the tooth. The dentist does this alone and with dirty surgical tools. You develop a raging staph infection that takes a long time to cure. You later find out that the tooth could have been saved in a number of different ways and you sue the dentist.

The dentist's lawyers tell the jury:

"But the patient authorized that the tooth be extracted. Now he is waffling all over the place"

[dennis4868]

34. Sure it is a lost cause....

because the media is in bed with Bush and the rest of his thugs....but I am sick and tired of hearing that Bush was given a blank check when in fact he was not. The very law/act passed by congress (i.e., the IWR) was violated by Bush....a federal crime!

If you read Dean's book Bush's response to congress after he illegally invaded Iraq was a joke, no substance. No proof that Iraq was a real threat or that Saddam had anything to do with 911 as the statute required Bush to do.

Now we have 900 soldiers dead because of a lie and a CRIME!

And Clinton lies about a BJ and the media cannot control themselves....:-(

[welshTerrier2]

35. Nope ... Right ...

Read anything Robert Byrd wrote about the resolution ... all your "little" points do is require bush to drop off a letter to the Congress (which he did btw) saying that he invaded Iraq because he so determined ...

and the war was underway and the Congress had nothing else to say on the matter ... nothing ...

yeah, bush never met the requirements ... great ... and this helped those killed in Iraq how ??? the truth is that bush did meet the requirements ... you posted them very nicely ... he DID make a "Presidential Determination" that the conditions had been met ... that was the only requirement ...

are you saying that he either did not provide the required determination in writing within 48 hours ??? he did ... or are you saying he didn't have a basis to make the determination ?? the resolution's language says that: as he determines to be necessary and appropriate ... the point is that neither you nor the Congress get to make this determination ... bush made it ... and therefore was in compliance with the resolution ...

sooooo, if you say he didn't meet the requirements, go ahead and make your case ...

[dennis4868]

40. In a Nutshell.....

Bush's determination only repeated the Whereas Clauses in his original letter to congress to wage war with Iraq. John Dean's book can definitely describe all of this alot better than I can....but in Bush's Determination to Congress he never included any proof that Saddam was involved in 911 or that he was a threat to our homeland...Bush simply repeated the Whereas Clauses that have no legal effect...again, read the John Dean book to get a better idea of how Bush's committed a crime. Bush violated the very law that gave him the authority to go to war conditionally.

[welshTerrier2]

44. not according to the language in the resolution

i'm not a lawyer but i can't find anything in the resolution that requires bush to do anything more than parrot back the "Whereas clauses" ... it reads "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" ... i see nothing here that says he must provide any proof whatsoever ... do you ??

i read it to say that he gets to make the determination that the criteria have been met ... it doesn't say that he must return to the Congress or provide any proof as to what kind of moronic process or manufactured data he used to make the determination ... the resolution just says it's his call ... period ...

if you want to provide a legal case against him that John Dean wrote about, great ... have at it ... i hope they hang the bastard ... but i'm not hearing any credible arguments so far from anyone in this thread ...

[dennis4868]

47. John Dean is a lawyer.....

Yes you are not a lawyer and John Dean is a lawyer and he discusses in depth what a Presidential Determination is....it's not what you say it is...that all Bush has to do is make a determination. A Presidential Determination is very common when a President is asking congress for something...a Presidential Determination is proof/facts/evidence to congress why a President wants authorization from Congress. Whereas Clauses is not considered evidence....even I know that as a contracts lawyer. Anyway, Presidential Determinations have a long history...it is a legal term....PLEASE READ, WORSE THAN WATERGATE by John Dean and then we can discuss this further. Thanks!

[welshTerrier2]

51. Robert Byrd

tell you what ... go read Robert Byrd's book and get back to me ... you've presented absolutely no information about what a Presidential Determination requires ... Byrd says Congress abdicated its Constitutional responsibilities ...

it's not that I disagree with you ... it's that you haven't made any case at all other than referring me to a book ...

and if you've presented all these posts to defend John Kerry's vote, why hasn't Kerry called for an investigation of bush's crimes ?? one would like to think that a Senator who sees such a violation should at least try to do something about it ... or at least label it a violation of law ...

has Kerry done this ... or anything at all about the Constitutional crime you allege ??

[dennis4868]

54. I am not.....

defending Kerry....I am mad as hell at Kerry for voting the way he did...I will vote for Kerry nonetheless because we now have a cancer in the WH that must be taken out. But I think I explained to you that a Determination is much more than stupid minded Bush determining that we must attack Iraq....it is a formal presentation to Congress that must be supported by evidence....none of which was included in Bush's Determination to congress....and yes, I refer you to John Dean's book because he can explain this to you ALOT BETTER than I can. I will read Byrd's book if you read Dean's book.....deal?

[Imperialism Inc.]

62. Here are some links to various "Presidential Determinations"

Does not seem to support what you(John Dean?) claims. He can basically claim whatever he wants to claim. He offers no hard proof in any of these determinations. Why would a determination on Iraq be any different?

Presidential Determination Regarding U.S. Assistance To
the Government of Colombia Airbridge Denial Program
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/08/20030819-3.html

======
Presidential Determination Under the Sudan Peace Act
http://www.state.gov/p/af/rls/19798.htm
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE

SUBJECT: Presidential Determination under the Sudan Peace Act

Pursuant to section 6(b)(1)(A) of the Sudan Peace Act (Public Law 107-245), I hereby determine and certify that the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement are negotiating in good faith and that negotiations should continue.

You are authorized and directed to notify the Congress of this determination and to arrange for its publication in the Federal Register.

========

Presidential Determination No. 2003-05
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021209-4.html

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE

Subject: Presidential Determination of Designations Under the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President of the United States, including under section 5 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) (the "Act"), I hereby determine that each of the following groups is a democratic opposition organization and that each satisfies the criteria set forth in section 5(c) of the Act: the Assyrian Democratic Movement; the Iraqi Free Officers and Civilians Movement; the Iraqi National Front; the Iraqi National Movement; the Iraqi Turkmen Front; and the Islamic Accord of Iraq. I hereby designate each of these organizations as eligible to receive assistance under section 4 of the Act.

You are authorized and directed to report this determination and designation to the Congress and to arrange for its publication in the Federal Register.

GEORGE W. BUSH

[dennis4868]

66. Again, the Iraqi....

Determination was suppose to provide congress with facts and circumstances that Iraq was involved in 911 and the Determination never made that case...by the way, the Iraqi Determination and most official Determinations are 20-30 pages long...what you get at the WH website are just a snippet of the actual Determination....my dad is borrowing the John Dean book but once I get it back I will more fully and accurately explain my position which at least 7 other constitutional lawyers agree with....went to a discussion of this same subject at GW Law School last winter....unfortunately I did not make it until the near end of it but basically they said the same thing as attorney john dean said...that Bush violated the very law that allowed him to go to war.

[killbotfactory]

16. here's the text

http://www.geocities.com/tom_slouck/iraq/congress_iraq_resolution_final_text.html

Basically it allows Bush to wage war on Iraq if he determines it to be neccessary.

Bush chose war when it was unneccessary.

Kerry thought that Powell made a good case to the UN, and on the eve of war stated that Saddam brought military action on himself, Bush was "right to disarm Saddam", but had failed miserably in the diplomacy department.

[Steven Leser]

21. Let me put this to rest for EVERYONE. See this link

Kerry's Statement on the Resolution from the Senate Floor, THE DAY BEFORE THE VOTE + MY OWN COMMENTARY

[killbotfactory]

29. Yeah, Kerry said Bush would have to do a bunch of things to legitimize war

Bush did pretty much none of them.

Kerry then supported the war, but said Bush failed miserably in diplomacy.

The conditions which Kerry stated must be met transformed into his "strong personal preference" on the eve of invasion.

Kerry didn't technically vote for war. He just passed the final decision to the presdient. When the president made that decision, Kerr supported him with reservations.

[wuushew]

31. His statement doesn't seem very dovish to me

I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future. It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world's determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must: unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless underinternational supervision of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems... unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-usable material.


-snip-


As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter. In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons?

[Steven Leser]

33. The question isn't whether his statement is dovish...

...the question is whether or not Kerry voted for the war or some sort of blank check. I think we can see that this was the furthest thing from his mind, and not at all what he felt he was doing.

[wuushew]

41. All I want is an apology from Kerry!

Things he has said since the war almost disturb me more than the IWR itself.

He has said something to the effect of "This was the right war waged in the wrong way". I disagree fundamentally with that since he is espousing a view that destroying countries is ok if they are somehow not American enough in human rights or are developing nuclear weapons as is the right of any country.

If he is doing this to pander and win votes I want him to admit it come Nov. 3rd Saying something like "I John Kerry ran for President in a country where people are more comfortable voting for bullies who make mistakes than doves who are proved right, this reflects poorly on are national character but I realize this and have accommodated to this reality to achieve a greater good for our society".

[Steven Leser]

56. I don't see that he owes one.

If I were in Kerry's place and someone said they wanted an apology for the reasons you described, I would say, I'm sorry this person was the President, or at least the occupier of the white house and therefore embarked on the decisions that he did.

Bush knew he would get passage of the resolution or he wouldn't have called for his party colleagues to put up a vote, and would have invaded anyway, just as Clinton did with the Balkans.

You are wasting energy. Every avenue you try to take your argument is blocked by facts to the contrary, and worse, contributes to the Repukes line of attack against Kerry.

[Imperialism Inc.]

64. Talk is cheap.

What is important is what is in the resolution. All that is required by the resolution is that Bush give a determination to congress that he thinks diplomacy won't be enough. There is no standard given in the resolution by which to judge the determination as correct. There is no recourse given to Congress somehow disapprove of the determination. So what does it really matter what was said?

Your story is lacking in one extremely important detail and contains an inaccuracy which I have added and bolded.

You go to the dentist because you have a toothache. The dentist says the tooth might have to be pulled, would that be OK? You say, you will only be OK with that if the dentist exhausts other options, such as filling the tooth, or crowning it, and if he needs to extract it, that he has the necessary surgical staff assisting him and clean surgical tools. Despite this you sign a statement authorizing the dentist to pull the tooth whenever he wants, at his discretion. Upon hearing this, the dentist knocks you out with a sedative and pulls the tooth.(not accurate. as much as I despise Bush, and believe he never had any intention but war on Iraq, he did go through the motions and did not go straight to the sedatives as in your story) The dentist does this alone and with dirty surgical tools. You develop a raging staph infection that takes a long time to cure. You later find out that the tooth could have been saved in a number of different ways and you sue the dentist.

[democratreformed]

52. Nitpicky here but,

if the resolution allows Bush to wage war on Iraq if "he determines it to be necessary", then did it not make what anyone else thinks about whether it was "necessary" irrelevant? Doesn't that give him all the power? That's the way I always viewed the resolution - that it gave him full power and authority to do what he wanted. That's what made me so angry when it passed. No one person should have that power.

[welshTerrier2]

19. Why bring this up again ???!!!

look ... what Kerry did he did ... we either agree with his vote or we don't ...

and if we don't, then we either vote for him in spite of his IWR vote or we don't ...

the issue is DIVISIVE ... it hurts the party and it lessens Kerry's chances ... give it a rest already ...

you're playing a very thin semantic game here ... I think Kerry's vote was an atrocity ... it was wrong ... it led, at a minimum, to bush being able to parade around with the symbolic support of the House and Senate ... Senator Byrd referred to it as the worst vote ever passed in the Congress ... he saw the Senate abdicating its Constitutional responsibility ... i totally agree with him ...

I'm supporting Kerry 100% because bush is the most evil person ever to occupy the whitehouse ... but i don't appreciate being reminded that I'm having to overlook Kerry's hideous IWR vote to do so ... give it a rest already ... quit while you're ahead ...

[Steven Leser]

28. There is no need. Your interpretation is wrong, and you can read why

in the text of Kerry's speech on the senate floor.

There is also no abdication of congressional authority. If you understand the constitution, you know that the moment a President is sworn in, he can commit the nations armed forces to war and there is nothing congress can do about it for quite some time, perhaps ever depending on what a supreme court might do if presented with a case over the war powers resolution.

[welshTerrier2]

42. No Sale my friend

first, welcome to DU ...

second, no dice ... i read Kerry's speech when he gave it ... I'll trust Senator Byrd's interpretation of the Constitution over yours if you don't mind ... also, if you read all my posts in this thread carefully, you'll see that you failed to respond to the point i made that whether the President does or doesn't have the Constitutional authority to wage war, Congress with its vote gave bush, at a minimum, symbolic authorization ....

the divisiveness you're getting from me on this issue is actually why it is foolish to keep bringing this issue up now ...

most DU'ers are supporting Kerry IN SPITE OF his vote ... i would politely suggest it is to Kerry's advantage to let this "little unpleasantness" fade into the distance ... you're not going to convince anyone who disagreed with Kerry's vote to the contrary ... we've been around and around on this issue hundreds of times ...

[Steven Leser]

46. I'm not selling anything, I am 100% convinced I am right and that there is

no other possible logical interpretation. I rarely think that way with political/philosophical thought, but any interpretation of this as Kerry giving a blank check to go to war ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES that one either intentionally, or through ignorance ignore several facts.

There really is no constitutional issue to interpret. Did Reagan invade Grenada? Yes. Did he get congressional approval? No. Did it cause a constitutional crisis, or was he impeached? No. How about Bush and Panama? Same answers to the same questions. Clinton and the Balkan involvement? Same answers to the same questions. Clinton and Sudan? Same answers to the same questions. Since 1980, any idea how many times US troops have been committed by the commander in chief to any one of several dozen countries without prior congressional approval? There are many minor actions we never even hear about. Let's get real here people.

What is the constitutional mystery here? I don't get it. We don't really even need to delve into the murkyness of the war powers resolution.

As far as what Kerry was doing when he voted "Yea", we now have a detailed account, which I posted, which has his exact thoughts on that the day before.

So, we have a slam dunk on the major issues being discussed. I realize with great sadness that a number of individuals who ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination themselves were in my opinion dishonest on the issue and contributed to the muddying of the waters. The problem with those candidates, and those arguing with me is that this is not even a remotely complex issue, the facts are all on my side, and you arguing with me on them is very silly. Sorry to be somewhat arrogant about it, but I am tired of arguing this issue.

[welshTerrier2]

48. well, mr. arrogant (your self-description)

if my arguing with you is "very silly", then I will stop doing so ...

[wuushew]

49. There actually was a vote on the invasion of Panama

which Kerry voted for. How is America's problems with drugs reason to invade a country to overthrow a thug we helped install justify-able in the eyes of international law? The Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe doctrine is biggest sham ever.

[Steven Leser]

55. If you are talking about Senate Resolution 239 of July 1987...

...that was a resolution for Panamanians to peacefully remove Noriega from Power. To which resolution are you referring?

[wuushew]

57. You are correct

After I did a time consuming search of the THOMAS archives.

[TeacherCreature]

25. Kerry voted for the WAR

Any Democrat who voted for giving bush any power whatsoever should have their head examined. After bush stold the election, what more did any of them have to know about him?
If he voted for IWR, he voted for the war and he knew it.

[Steven Leser]

26. No, he didn't

You can see from the text I just posted exactly what was going on in his mind. It is disinformation like that kind you posted without really having any knowledge to back it up, that muddies the waters and gives the Repukes the ammunition to provide simplistic yet incorrect and dishonest messages that paint Democrats in the worst possible light.

[The Stranger]

32. We're doomed. Please learn about the WAR POWERS ACT.

If so many people are confused here, then we are doomed come November.

Last time I posted this in 30 point headline font. One more time:

The Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war. In order for the President to commit armed forces, Congress had to vote to authorize force under the WAR POWERS ACT. The vote to authorize the use of force, satisfying the requirements of the Constitution and the War Powers Act has been twisted by Republican liars into a vote to go to war. Kerry over and over has iterated that he wanted Bush to exhaust all options before invading, but Bush lied and attacked based on lies.

Please please please get this straight once and for all.

[Steven Leser]

39. The problem is, YOU do not have it straight...

War powers is an "act" a "law". It does not carry the weight that actual constitutional articles or amendments have. There is a world of debate as to what exactly the power to declare war begins and ends vs the power of the commander in chief. War powers is an interesting attempt to address this, but the constitutionality of it has never been tested. No congress or President since its passage has wanted to try, and no President since its passage has acknowledged it at all. We can go on in this vein, but I think the relevant part of the discussion is this, as with Reagan/Grenada, Bush I/Panama, as with Clinton and the Balkans, etc., the President does not need congressional approval for these types of actions.

Why then the vote? The vote was a measure of resolve, nothing more. Bush arguably had no more legal authority the day before or the day after.

[EndElectoral]

60. The Constitution and Founders were clear on this

Many early Americans opposed the proposed Constitution, fearing that it gave to the president powers too similar to those of Britain's king. Not so, nationalist Alexander Hamilton reassured his countrymen. In fact, the president's authority was:

. . . in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the land and naval forces . . . while that of the British King extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all of which by the Constitution would appertain of the legislature.

Article 1, Sec. 8(11) states that "Congress shall have the power . . . to declare war." As Alexander Hamilton indicated, the president is commander-in-chief, but he is to fulfill his responsibilities only within the framework established by the Constitution and subject to the control of Congress.

Wrote James Madison in 1793 (and he ought to know since he wrote a great deal of the Constitution), it is necessary to adhere to the "fundamental doctrine of the Constitution that the power to declare war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature."

Virginia's George Mason, the president "is not safely to be entrusted with" the power to decide on war. Mason therefore favored "clogging rather than facilitating war." James Wilson, though an advocate of a strong presidency, approvingly observed that the new constitutional system "will not hurry us into war." Instead, "it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress." Similarly, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "We have already given . . . one effectual check to the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose."

Even Hamilton agreed with his long-time adversary on this point, pointing out that the war powers of the president were "in substance much inferior to" that of the British king.

Against this abundant historical record there is no serious rebuttal. George Bush, for instance, stated that "I don't think I need it" when asked if congressional approval was necessary before attacking Iraq."

Enough said.

The above information was from of all places a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

[wuushew]

63. That is why Bush tried to link Gulf War II to the first war

Although it strikes me as arrogant presumption when enough time had passed for the same body that provides checks and balances to the executive branch to turn over in membership a full 2 times.

The Congress does not agree with a position in perpetuity, that is why votes are taken to establish policy from time to time. If wars never expire than any President can go to war with Mexico or Cuba for events that happened 100-150+ years ago.

[The Stranger]

65. No, that is not correct.

War powers is an "act" a "law". It does not carry the weight that actual constitutional articles or amendments have.

That is simply not correct on many different levels. It was passed by both houses of Congress and is law. There has been no judicial review of the War Powers Act to determine its constitutionality as it represented an agreement between the Executive and Legislative branches to forestall any Constitutional crisis over the President's powers. Both branches follow it in order to preserve their positions regarding what power they have.

Joint Resolution
Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
CONSULTATION
SEC. 3.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

. . . .

SEPARABILITY CLAUSE
SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint resolution and the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 10. This joint resolution shall take effect on the date of its enactment.

[sandnsea]

37. Where's Bandit???

Another IWR drive-by thread?

[G_j]

45. I think 4 all intents & purposes it was, but I'm bored w/ this discussion

is anybody going to change their mind? Let us contemplate what we can do to improve the present situation.

[CTLawGuy]

59. We are at war with Eurasia

We have always been at war with Eurasia.