Do you believe that if Congress had voted down the IWR, there would be no Iraq war?

[ProSense]

Yes or no?

[ClassWarrior]

1. No. These criminals would have found some way to...

...invade and occupy Iraq for their own power and profit.

NGU.

[blm]

2. Inevitable - they already had the legal cover from the 1991 UN resolution, just as Clinton had

Of course, the difference is that Clinton decided against going in because our allies were not convinced military action was needed.

IWR was a political exercise to divide the Dem party. Bush had no intention of administering any resolution honestly - the proof of that was the Downing Street Memos.

[MrCoffee]

3. no way.

it could have been unanimously rejected and we'd still be at war.

[KennedyGuy]

4. Sure there would have..people are forgetting how this crowd operated..

They went to Congress with a resolution..which was being stalled, it did not even have the possibility of passing until Chimpy and crowd assured the congress that they would return for an additional resolution before going to war. They were quite specific about saying that the resolution being debated did NOT authorize war.
The resolution passed.
Chimpy and crew then went out braying about a resolution passed by a wide majority of both parties authorizing war. They never returned for a second resolution as promised.
fast forward to the UN..same story.
The resolution before the security Council was in danger of going down..
Chimpy and crowd assured Russia, Germany and China that this resolution did NOT authorize war...that they would return for an additional resolution before going to war. It passed.
To this day they stil hail the unanimous resolution passed by the UN security council
They never mention that they did indeed return to the UN for a second resolution to authorize the war..
There was vigourous debate..
Chimpy went on TV and vowed that the resolution would go forward even if it would fail.
Two days later, when it became obvious that the Security Council was NOT going to authorize the war and the invasion, Chimpy pulled the resolution and invaded anyway.
They lied their way through the whole thing..
They like to re-write history, but that is EXACTLY the way it happened.

[dad]

25. Thank you for that history lesson

I somehow had already forgotten that they were promising a 2nd resolution before really going to war. Amazing, in that short of time, I forgot that until you just mentioned it. I don't think I've heard anyone mention that since it happened.

Kennedy guy, you should watch this video, it is just amazing:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9137354720737304741&q=jfk

[Pithy Cherub]

5. If you believe that

it was inevitable, then why be dumb enough to add your signature, reputations, presidential aspirations to such an idiotic venture.

[David Zephyr]

6. There would have been an Iraq war, at least I believe so and here's one reason:

Of all the evidence and first hand testimony that clearly reveals that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice intended to make war in Iraq with our without anyone's approval, the thing that always really got me was this:

Bush had boasted that he would force the UN to have an "up or down vote" on whether the U.S. could invade Iraq and he publicly bragged "I want to see them put their cards on the table" essentially bullying them. When this effort appeared to be backfiring and that France and Germany, among others, were willing to be singled out in a public vote, Bush suddenly declared that he was not going to push for a final vote and thereby avoided the obvious.

They intended to wage war in Iraq. They'd already begun shifting hundreds of millions of dollars (illegally) from the war in Afghanistan toward Iraq.

The lack of the IWR would have been a minor bump in their road to hell. At the very most.

[The Magistrate]

7. The War Would Have Proceeded On Schedule, Ma'am

The casualties at the polls among those who voted it down would have been crushing, and the new Congress would have voted some enabling text or other in time to provide the window dressing of Constitutionality.

[salib]

8. More to the point

If We had gotten off our asses back when Gore was being denied the Whitehouse and we could have done SO MUCH MORE, we would not even be having this what-if discussion.

[Uncle Joe]

9. I believe Bush would have found a way to war anyway, however

he would have paid for it dearly in 2004 and we would have President Kerry today.

[blm]

12. Read his signing statement -

actually, I believe that the 2002 election would have been worse for the Dems and Bush would have gotten the IWR that absolutely covered him legally in every area with no guidelines included. So, I doubt 2004 would have been effected - the Iraqis were never going to have their first vote until Dec 2004, and no way was any Dem nominee going to state they didn't trust the Iraqis to vote or form a government before that first vote.

Anyway, here's the signing statement where you see the WH clearly knew IWR was not the vote for war as they spun it into in the media.

Read the second paragraph especially.

Today I have signed into law H.J. Res. 114, a resolution "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." By passing H.J. Res. 114, the Congress has demonstrated that the United States speaks with one voice on the threat to international peace and security posed by Iraq. It has also clearly communicated to the international community, to the United Nations Security Council, and, above all, to Iraq's tyrannical regime a powerful and important message: the days of Iraq flouting the will of the world, brutalizing its own people, and terrorizing its neighbors must - and will - end. Iraq will either comply with all U.N. resolutions, rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, and in its support for terrorists, or it will be compelled to do so. I hope that Iraq will choose compliance and peace, and I believe passage of this resolution makes that choice more likely.

The debate over this resolution in the Congress was in the finest traditions of American democracy. There is no social or political force greater than a free people united in a common and compelling objective. It is for that reason that I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. On the important question of the threat posed by Iraq, however, the views and goals of the Congress, as expressed in H.J. Res. 114 and previous congressional resolutions and enactments, and those of the President are the same.

Throughout the past months, I have had extensive consultations with the Congress, and I look forward to continuing close consultation in the months ahead. In addition, in accordance with section 4 of H.J. Res. 114, I intend to submit written reports to the Congress on matters relevant to this resolution every 60 days. To the extent possible, I intend to consolidate information in these reports with the information concerning Iraq submitted to the Congress pursuant to previous, related resolutions.

The United States is committed to a world in which the people of all nations can live in freedom, peace, and security. Enactment of H.J. Res. 114 is an important step on the road toward such a world.

George W. Bush
The White House,
October 16, 2002.

[Uncle Joe]

13. The question from the O.P was

Do you believe that if Congress had voted down the IWR, there would be no Iraq war?

Yes or no?


I posted, Bush would have went to war regardless.

Having said that, if a Republican controlled Congress had voted the IWR down and Bush still went to war, he would have been adversely affected in 2004. The Republicans would have jumped his ship sooner than they are doing now.

[SaveElmer]

10. Nope...

Bush would not have hesitated for a moment...

[pinto]

11. I think it would have gone on one way or t'other. The set of "justifications" used would have been

different, but the military action and subsequent disaster we see now would have played out the same.

[DaveinMD]

14. no

Bush would have claimed he didn't need the authority. He doesn't give a crap what Congress thinks.

[sendero]

15. There would still have been a war...

.. but Dems would at least be able to say they tried to stop it. It would be a 100% Republican war had the Dems done what they should have.

[Heewack]

16. No.

As other have pointed out it was political exercise. He had to be talked into going to Congress in the first place, and that signing statement posted above that it wouldn't have mattered. I really question the idea of using the IWR as some sort of litmus test for future candidates. We are going to end up throwing out the baby with the bath water.

[sandnsea]

17. They lied and said there was a 'grave danger'

Nothing would have stopped them from saying the same thing without the IWR. The guy is ignoring the entire world at this point, I don't know why anybody thinks he wouldn't have done the same thing in order to go to war.

[KBlagburn]

18. Bush would have gone to war regardless.............

Alberto Gonzalez, as white house council, had already advised bush that he did not need the consent of Congress to send troops into war. He would have used that as his authority. Bush would still have sent the troops to war no matter who said or did what. He was intent on doing so b4 he stole the election in '00.

[PassingFair]

19. Do you believe that impeachment would be easier if Congress

...had voted down the IWR?

WAKE UP.

He would NEVER have been allowed to SHOCK AND AWE without
the IWR.

He would NEVER have been allowed 6 YEARS to kill 600,000
PEOPLE and SPEND BILLIONS of DOLLARS with NO OVERSIGHT.

We screamed our heads off at the time.
During the elections we were cautioned to "cool it",
it was more important to "gain control".

We LOST because our candidate VOTED FOR THE IWR.
He couldn't DEBATE AGAINST THE WAR because he had VOTED TO
ALLOW IT.

Now, when even the propaganda can no longer cover the
stench of death and failure and bankruptcy and financial
ruin, we have "gained control".

We have to clean house as promised.

NO COVER-UPS.

[ProSense]

21. No!

Feingold voted against the IWR and is against impeachment! So what does that prove?

Bush also had the War Powers Resolution.

(FindLaw) -- Republicans are debating among themselves whether President Bush should go to war against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Is a unilateral pre-emptive strike called for to prevent Hussein from getting nuclear weapons? Would such an attack destabilize the region and send oil prices soaring? Do we need -- or want -- allies involved?

Members of Congress, however, have raised the more fundamental question of whether the President can launch a war against Iraq without Congressional approval. According to reports out of Crawford, Texas, President Bush thinks he can. He believes the authorization Congress provided his father in 1991 for Operation Desert Storm is still good.

Snip...

The last great debate over presidential war powers

Truman's decision became the precedent for the unpopular Vietnam War (1961-1975). By 1973, the war-weary Congress challenged the President's war powers, concerned it had lost all power over the unending war in Vietnam, by introducing a sweeping War Powers Resolution

This resolution, designed to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President" are involved in decisions to use American military forces, acknowledges that a President can start a war without Congress -- so long as he advises Congress he is doing so. Then, if Congress does not either declare war or otherwise authorize the use of the military within 60 days from the start of the hostilities, the President must terminate such use of the military.

Over the veto of a Watergate-weakened Richard Nixon, the War Powers Resolution was adopted. But presidents have largely ignored it.

The War Powers Resolution, moreover, seemed to have pleased no one. Liberals, for example, criticized the resolution for permitting the president to unilaterally initiate hostilities for 60 days, before Congress can exercise its constitutional powers.

link

[PassingFair]

31. Feingold could enthusiastically push FOR impeachment

had congress NOT not given chimpy the nod. Sadly, he now has to cover the asses of
his fellow congress critters.


"Feingold voted against the IWR and is against impeachment! So what does that prove?"

[ProSense]

33. Feingold wanted censure, which is different

He didn't want impeachment then, and still doesn't:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2794846&mesg_id=2794846

[PassingFair]

34. I suspect he would be sailing into a different direction had

the dems held together en masse and told
the chimperor to SHOVE it and ALL voted
no on IWR.

I'm just sayin....

[nodular]

20. Yes.

If that vote had gone the other way, Congress would not have provided the required money had Bush tried to go to war. No money, no war.

[ProSense]

22. The Pentagon had

a $300 billion budget and was fighting a war in Afghanistan! He started the war before he even asked for money for Iraq!

[sampsonblk]

23. Moral responsibility to vote 'NO'

Bush needed the support of the US Congress and the UN to invade Iraq. He obviously settled for one out of two. But could he have gone to the UN empty-handed? Would he have even tried? I lean toward no. The Bush admin twisted a lot of arms and kissed a lot of azz to get the IWR passed. That tells me they considered it vital to have the Congress' support as they went to the UN to gain international support for this illegal war. What the IWR said never mattered. What mattered was having some form - any form - of congressional support to show the UN.

In looking back, this was the critical time when men and women of courage had a moral responsibility to vote 'no.' Few did.

[FrenchieCat]

24. If I had Cancer, I'd still want to be treated to prevent my death.....

Whether it was terminal or not might not be known till I passed away.

So it is my belief that just cause something bad might be inevitable one doesn't help push it to its end.

[Eugene]

26. Bush would have attacked anyway claiming an imminent threat.

Bush never let the illegitimacy of his actions get in the way.
If Congress did not approve the resolution, the Bushies
would have simply worked harder to hype the threat of
another terror attack.

[ecstatic]

27. Possibly, but at least they wouldn't have blood on their hands

This is one case where I would have respected the hell out of anyone taking the moral high ground.

[CTLawGuy]

28. so that means it's ok to vote for it?

even if what you say is true, I'd STILL expect them to do their duty as members of Congress and not give the president carte blanche to go to war.

If Jeffrey Dahmer is going to kill someone anyway, it's ok to give him a gun?

[MadHound]

29. Hear, hear! If the IWR hadn't passed, it wouldn't have given Bush legal and political cover

It would have meant that the Democrats could have freely criticized the war without the onus of hearing "but you voted for it". It also would have presented some interesting Constitutional issues, which perhaps might have ended this war years ago.

But instead, afraid for their political future, many Dems took what they saw as the easy way out, trading the lives of our soldiers and innocent Iraqis for their own narrow, selfish political future. Worse yet, many continue to support the war with their favorable votes on funding(hint, Clinton). At this point in time, such actions are inexcusable.

[LWolf]

30. I believe the answer is irrelevant.

I don't know, and as far as the IWR vote goes, I don't care. The vote was wrong, and second-guessing the outcome of a correct vote doesn't change that.

Whether the Bush administration would have found another reason, another way, to get into Iraq is not the point. The point is that voting for the IWR helped, rather than hindered, his agenda.

If the IWR had not passed, I'm sure he would have done something else. Which would have been the next step for opposition.

The Democrats in Congress should have opposed his agenda, no matter what kind of package it came wrapped in.

[baldguy]

32. They've been planning this since before 1996.

They wouldn't have let the opportunity slip by.