Help me with Authority to go to war in Iraq

[Curtis]

that congress gave up to Bush. I KNOW Bush was campaigning for congress to give him the authority by saying he only wanted that vote from congress, not so he could go to war, but so he could go to the UN with the power of that resolution and the congress behind him.

I need links to text from Bush or any of his minions so I can show proof to some freeper friends. The conveniently say congress decided to go to war in Iraq not Bush.

Please help

[madeline_con]

1. check impeach Bush links

They'll probably guide you to the details you're looking for.

[Curtis]

2. Bummer. Just one reply

Anyon else?

The thing is that I am arguing with a few people who claim that when congress passed the resolution Bush had no choice but to go to war because it was congress' way of declaring war.

I specifically remember Bush (and his minions) saying the only reason he wanted the resolution passed was so he could then have more barganing power because the US would present a united front to the UN and the rest of the world.

I found a statement by Bush before the resolution was passed where he said:
"Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited."

However, I also want to see if anyone has anything where any of them went on talk shows or more speeches so I have a preponderance of proof to show them how they are being revisionists

[YankeeFan]

3. Please Try to Remember…

That Kerry was part of the Anti-Iraq screamers Once Upon a Time.
Then it became Politically Correct to denounce The Mess in Iraq. He was found out and the Repubs went to town with it. Their “Flipper” ads hit very close to home.

Now while Dean may have said something in favor of The Mess in Iraq I haven’t found anything yet.

[LynnTheDem]

4. I've links, gimme a few mins to locate (you're right, freepers wrong)

[Ragnar]

5. Here you are:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

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

It was a shameful abdication of duty on the part of Congress.

[Curtis]

6. Ahhhh

That is a very good thing.

Here is how I put it to them:

Did this authority (the authority from congress to go to war) mean:

1. we were off to war and it was unavoidable at that point because congress made the decision
2. the nation speaks with one voice thus strengthening Bush's position at the UN and before the world

I am arguing #2 and that is the way Bush sold and campaigned for the authority in the first place.

[Ragnar]

7. Personally, I think it was pure cowardice on the part of Congress.

Congress, not the President is the arbiter of when we go to war in this country. Allowing one man that power as a negotiating tool, or for any other reason is an abdication of their duty. If they had not passed that bill, one of two things would have occured (assuming the UN and hussein's actions were the same):

1. They would have voted for the war, and been forced to face the antiwar crowd in their districts.
   
2. They would have voted against the war and been forced to face the prowar crowd in their districts.

Both of these would have been good things. Elected officials should have the courage to stand by their convictions, and face the electorate with their reasoning. If their reasoning is unpersuasive, they will lose their offices. If it is persuasive, they will retain their offices. It's a little thing called democracy, and we were robbed of it in this case.

[newyawker99]

10. Hi Ragnar!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[welshTerrier2]

11. "as he determines to be necessary"

welcome to DU, Ragnar !!!

you have highlighed the essential phrase to answer the question posed ...

the IWR was a total sellout of Congress' responsibility ... Democrats never should have supported this resolution ...

interestingly enough, the crime bush committed was when he lied to fulfill his obligations under Section 3B of the resolution:

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

The DSM clearly indicated that bush knew Iraq was not a threat to the US ... If the Conyers' hearings proceed, bush could ultimately be impeached not because he planned for war long before the IWR was passed but because he lied in his statement to the Congress required by the IWR to justify the invasion.

It's also important to note that the UN never authorized the US to invade Iraq ... the UN, under massive US pressure (and de-funding threats), agreed that Iraq was not in compliance with UN Resolution 1441 that was enacted in response to Saddam's actions prior to the Gulf War ... but agreeing that Iraq was not in compliance with the resolution did NOT provide the US with the authority to take unilateral, un-sanctioned action against Iraq ...

Finally, bush had no evidence, because there was no truth there, under subsection 2 (see above) that required proof that Iraq had participated in any way in international terrorism or had anything whatsoever, directly or indirectly, to do with the 9/11 attacks in NY ...

bush lied, soldiers died, it's time he was tried ...

[LynnTheDem]

8. Avoiding war was the specific reason Bush gave to support the resolution

Too bad the REPUBLICAN-owned (remind your freeper friends) Congress were STUPID enough to trust bush. bush deceived the Congress into thinking he was going to be reasonable. But bush took it as a blank check.

In an Oct. 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, just four days before the Senate vote, bush pledged to exhaust other options and said that war was "not inevitable." He urged Congress to pass the resolution to give him leverage.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

So what did bush do? He kicked the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq when they needed 90 days to finish their work.

Bush, speaking to reporters after the House vote, said the IWR "sends a clear message to the Iraqi regime: It must disarm and comply with all U.N. resolutions or it will be forced to comply."

So what did bush do? He kicked the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq when they needed 90 days to finish their work.

The IWR emphasizes the need to EXHAUST DIPLOMATIC MEASURES.

So what did bush do? He kicked the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq when they needed 90 days to finish their work.

Q Mr. President, how important is it that that resolution give you an authorization of the use of force?

BUSH: That will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. But it's -- this will be -- this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about.

On March 18th, George W. Bush wrote to the Speaker of the House (Hastert) and the President of the Senate (Cheney) invoking the powers granted him by Public Law 107-243. Initiating the invasion of Iraq, he wrote:

"...I determine that:... (Declaring war on Iraq and) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Except even BUSH admitted (and still admits) Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 911.

And the Big One; Congress DID NOT vote for war on Iraq; they CLEARLY voted to hand that authority to BUSH;

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.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

I have more bush quotes prior to the IWR vote, his bullshit about only needing it for leverage etc, will look them out later, my file is HUGH!!1!11 :D

[Curtis]

9. Keep them coming.

just this one reply is awesome :)