Analysis of the actual language of the IWR

[CTLawGuy]

John Kerry, nice guy though he is, his IWR vote speech is not the law, neither is the wishful thinking of the "IWR was a vote for flowers and candy, but Bush violated it" crowd. This is the law:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

Title: Paraphrased, it allows the use of the US military to attack Iraq. Sounds like the title of a war resolution to me.

"Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - >> "



The "whereas" clauses: These are not part of the law, but really constitute the reasoning behind the law. For instance it declares that Iraq is continuing to violate UN resolutions by having WMD and brutally repressing its people.

"Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

(*)Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace

<[Page 116 STAT. 1499>]

and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

<[Page 116 STAT. 1500>]

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President 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, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate 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, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,"

Section I: Short title. Same as the long title.

"SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''."

Section II: Support for diplomatic efforts. This is a simple expression of moral support for the president's "efforts" to secure (1) enforcement of UNSC resolutions through that body, and (2) to get the UNSC to compel Iraq to stop stalling weapons inspections, etc. There is NO requirement that Bush pursue any diplomatic strategy, or any withholding of war authority if he does not go through the UN. It is just an expression of support for that strategy.

"SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Section III(a): The grant of power. This is the meat of the resolution. There are two separate authorities given to Bush: (1) to defend the US against the "continuing threat" by Iraq, which Congress above acknowledged exists (see (*)). There is no definition of what this continuing threat is, or what tactics Bush can use or how far he can go. This does not forbid Bush's ultimate action. (2) to "enforce" any UN resolution regarding Iraq. It doesn't say HOW he is to enforce it, or which specific resolutions he is to enforce. Bush could decide to "enforce" UNSC resolutions through regime change. There's no bar to him doing that in the text.

"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."

Section III(b): "conditions" on use of the power granted above. The only "condition" is that Bush make a "determination" before or within 48 hours of using force that (1) diplomacy or other non-war means will not (i) protect the US, or (ii) lead to enforcement of UNSC resolutions. He also needs to determine(2) that this is consistent with the war on terror. He doesn't have to back it up with facts, or be ultimately correct. There is no means to question or veto his determination, and no subsequent Congressional approval is needed. All that's needed is the president's belief that war is necessary.

"(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."

Section III(c): War Powers resolution: The WPA exists to prevent war from being simply a product of presidential intitiative. It requires a specific authorization before the president may use troops. Congress is saying here that this IWR is such an authorization.

"(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."

Section IV: Reports: This lists details about reports the president has to give to Congress about what he has been doing. They must be given every 60 days. There are no substantive requirements for war authority in this.

"SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> Reports.--The President shall, at least
once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant
to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are
completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

<[Page 116 STAT. 1502>]

(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission
of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission
of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report
required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the
requirements of section 3 of such resolution."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IWR was essentially a blank check war resolution.
It grants the president the power to:
(1) protect the US against an Iraqi threat, which congress believes exists in the "whereas" clauses
(2) enforce UNSC resolutions.
There are no details or restrictions on how to "protect" the US or "enforce" UN resolutions. Regime change could constitute both protection and enforcement under this grant of authority.

The only condition put on this authority is that the president must "determine" that other solutions will not work. There is no check or balance against this, and he does not have to justify his determination or be right about it. Bush did so and there was nothing we could do.

Furthermore, this was the resolution pushed by Bush and signed by him. Why would he sign something that limited his power to go to war? He wouldn't.

I don't expect that the revisionist historians will be out in this thread, because their cognitive dissonance cannot respond to cold hard facts. Also, John Kerry's statement can't counteract it, because his statement is not the law.

[hijinx87]

1. it is what it is

it was all * needed to invade, although I am sure he would have
done what he did with less.

[acmavm]

2. Thank you, thank you, thank you. You hit the nail right smack

on the head. (Of course you will piss off all the Hillary, Kerry, Edwards apologists, but rightfully so.)

<snip> (from your thread)

The only condition put on this authority is that the president must "determine" that other solutions will not work. There is no check or balance against this, and he does not have to justify his determination or be right about it. Bush did so and there was nothing we could do.

<snip>

That my friend is the absolute crux of the matter. The left the decision up to a criminal unscrupulous lying front man for the meanest, greediest, most crooked bunch of criminals ever to enter the American political scene. And now they say that they were fooled.

Please, give me a friggin' break.

Again, thank you.

[CTLawGuy]

3. you're welcome

may we never see another IWR ever again. The one big lesson we should take from all of this, is that we must take more responsibility to be a check on the power of the president in matters of war. If we don't, the consequences are deadly.

[Dr Fate]

12. Unfair to include Kerry & Edwards with Hill- K & E admitted their mistakes. n/t

n/t

[ProSense]

4. What on earth did you just post? From the link:

<DOC>



<[Page 1497>]

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

<[Page 116 STAT. 1498>]

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - >>

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace

<[Page 116 STAT. 1499>]

and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

<[Page 116 STAT. 1500>]

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President 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, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate 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, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

<[Page 116 STAT. 1501>]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

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.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> Reports.--The President shall, at least
once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant
to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are
completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

<[Page 116 STAT. 1502>]

(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission
of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission
of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report
required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the
requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Approved October 16, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-721 (Comm. on International Relations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.
Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement.

<all>

This was not the resolution that Bush pushed and his own signing statement acknowledges that:

Statement on Signing the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
October 16th, 2002

Snip...

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.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64386

[CTLawGuy]

5. then why did he sign it?

if he didn't want it, he would have vetoed it. He had so much political capital, he could have gotten any resolution he wanted.

It doesn't matter whether he thought he had inherent authority, he wanted political cover from Congress if he could get it.

Incidently, the bold text is my annotation of the text.

[blm]

7. The president is REQUIRED to be truthful in his determination to congress - Bush lied

in his letter to congress when he said military force was necessary.

Bush's letter to congress was ILLEGAL under our laws and he should be impeached for violating the IWR. And those who push the idea that he didn't have to be truthful and could get away with anything are letting Bush off the hook - - yet again.

IWR did not take this country to war.

[CTLawGuy]

9. he is?

a determination is an opinion. There's no requirement in the text that it be based on sound fact. Sorry you remain in denial about the huge mistake passing this resolution was, especially the fact that it was voted for by someone, who shall remain nameless, who had voted against the first gulf war.

[blm]

10. A president is FORBIDDEN to make an untruthful statement in official letters to congress.

Bush stated that he made his determination that the national security of our country was at risk even after the weapons inspections and diplomatic efforts were proving that to be untrue. The Downing Street Memos also proved that he intended to make that determination even if they had to 'fix' the intel to do it.

So, you can believe that Bush adhered to the letter of the law and only implemented the IWR as his duty, but, to many of us, even his signing statement to the IWR proves he and his WH never gave one whit about the IWR and never saw it as any type of directive, but instead would wield it as a political tool and use their media control at the time to assure that most of the public believed that IWR was a vote FOR war with no guidelines to be met by the president.

[Dr Fate]

17. True. On the other hand, we expect smart folks to know when someone is lying.

I would think that Powell's presentation of not one, but 2 forged documents to make his "homerun" case to the UN should have been a big hint.

Having said that- I forgive those who have admitted this mistake.

Personally,I feel that rehashing these old excuses is counterproductive and time consuming- it is much easier just to honestly admit that a "yes" vote was a mistake and move on.

The average voter who now opposes the war also would have voted "yes"- I think they would prefer just admitting the mistake over these wordy excuses.

[talk hard]

6. just like Byrd said --- it WAS blank check

thanks ---- but dont' expect some to fess up, they're protecting their candidates's butt

[Clarkie1]

8. This is the only important part, really.

"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."

[SaveElmer]

13. From Wesley Clark...Sept 26, 2002...

Testimony before Congress...

I think it's not time yet to use force against Iraq but it is certainly time to put that card on the table, to turn it face up and to wave it and the president is doing that and I think that the United States Congress has to indicate after due consideration and consulting our people and building our resolve that yes, this is a significant security problem for the United States of America and all options are on the table including the use of force as necessary to solve this problem because I think that's what's required to leverage any hope of solving this problem short of war.

Not a call for immediate war, but as CalPundit interprets it in a defense of Clark...

It's painfully obvious that Clark could have agreed with the idea of passing the September war resolution as a way of pressuring Saddam, but that six months later he believed that the pressure was working and we shouldn't have gone to war. This, in turn, is also consistent with a belief that once we went to war he really wanted to see us win.

In other words the IWR may have been the correct strategy...even Scott Ritter noted that inspections without the threat of force were uselss...and that the IWR appeared to be working. It was GEORGE BUSH that made the decision to ignore that progress and take the country to war...

The exact reason given by virtually every Democrat voting for the IWR

[Dr Fate]

14. The problem is that a "yes" vote meant that you have to trust Bush.

And people who trusted Bush w/o admitting that was a mistake dont have much credibility with folks who pay attention.

Bush was a known by anyone with access to legit international press (available in less than 5 seconds via the interent) to be liar on FP issues.

Bush was known to have already lied about WMDs and 9/11 connex before the vote.(presentation of known to be forged documents to the UN-also investigated and uncovered in legit international press before the vote-anyone with "Google" on their computer could have read about it.)

Yet even knowing this or being literally 5 seconds away from legit international news sources via the internet to find out, many Democrats still voted "yes", apparently trusting a proven liar and his proven forgeries. Whatever Wes said or didnt say does not change this fact.

If Wes got it wrong, then Wes got it wrong- I dont see how this helps others who got it wrong and still support the war or refuse to discuss it honestly.

[SaveElmer]

15. The fact that Democrats who voted for the IWR...

Were taking Bush at his word was not hidden...virtually everyone of them made that statement explicitly in their floor statements...

Even opponents of the IWR, including Paul Wellstone, stated they believed Hussein either had or was attempting to acquire WMD's, they just believed the IWR was the wrong approach...and it certainly was...

But as CalPundit also notes, Clark statement show's a willingness "...to acknowledge that there are good arguments even for positions he opposes."

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003058.html

Even our own Will Pitt appears to be arguing in support of the IWR Here...defending Kerry's IWR position during the 2004 campaign...

The point is not that the IWR was in hindsight a mistake...it certainly was... but that those voting for it were not necessarily doing it for some nefarious personal reason, or that their arguments in defense of it were not reasonable...at least Wesley Clark seemed to think so.

[Dr Fate]

16. Wrong- A "yes" vote meant totally ignoring Bush's vast record of dishonesty on Iraq.

You nailed the problem- people who voted "yes" were "taking Bush at his word"- on what past examples of Bush honesty was any Democrat basing this trust upon? I cant think of even one- but I can think of several times where he lied about Iraq and was known to have lied about Iraq BEFORE the vote.

You are incorrect to frame this as "hindsight"-How many people who voted "yes" factored in the fact that Colin Powell had presented two sets of forged documents to the UN? Did they even discuss it or mention it?(an event fully covered by legit press outlets that congress had access to, BTW)

It's not "hindsight" when you already have knowledge that Bush is liar who made his case with known lies & known forged evidence, yet you vote "yes" based on "taking Bush at his word."

It could only be "hindsight" if Bush was not known by "yes" voters to have lied and presented forged documents-which is not the case.

I dont care what Finegold said- he voted "no"- the correct position.

I dont care what Pitt said in support of the DEM nominee- Kerry should have voted "no" instead of "yes"- at least he now admits that.

[SaveElmer]

18. Intelligence on WMD's...

Was being delivered by two people that Democrats at the time, in 2002, had no reason to distrust....Colin Powell who's integrity was widely acknowledged by Democrats, and George Tenet...Bill Clinton's CIA director...

Please cite for me the authoritative evidence available at the time, that would have made it unconscienable for Senators to take seriously the evidence provided by these men...

Please explain to me how Max Cleland and John Kerry made the decision to sign the death warrants of thousands of soldiers for their political gain....which is what you seem to believe to be the case.

And if you can, postulate for me how men as well informed as General Clark and Will Pitt would fail to mention this authoritative evidence in their IWR comments.

[Dr Fate]

19. Are you really arguing that it was not known that Powell lied & presented forged documents?

Hell- even CNN reported it:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/

Are you really arguing that Bush was not caught in several lies concerning Iraq, before the war?

Who was arguing that they were not forged, once the international press started reporteing the story?

To say that it was not known that Powell presented forged documents to the UN is to completely re-write history- do you honestly not remember those news stories- or where you only watching Fox, who refused to report it?

"Please explain to me how Max Cleland and John Kerry made the decision to sign the death warrants of thousands of soldiers for their political gain"

I cant. I dont know what they based "taking Bush at his word" on. The only record of Bush was one of not being able to take his word on anything. The only thing I can think of is maybe they believed it would be a "cake walk" and therefore didnt they think they would be sending thousands to their deaths.

[SaveElmer]

20. Uh...

The article you posted was from March 2003...IWR was passed October 2002...

Obviously I know the documents were forged...

I am asking if you have any authoritative citations from mid to late 2002 that could have been used by those voting on the IWR...

Wesley Clark's testimony was September 2002 and he said nothing about them...surely if it was that widely known it would have been a prominent part of his testimony.

[Dr Fate]

21. Some Forgeries were reported on Feb 6, one day after Powell's speech,

This info came out BEFORE the invasion.
I remember reading it on DU on the day it came out.

Is THIS what DEMS based "taking Bush at his word" on?

I'd like to know where the DEMS were who were asking "what else was forged? What else are they lying about" instead of "taking Bush at his word"

http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000683.php

But in September the British government released a 50-page dossier — much of it plagiarized from a student's dissertation — that included the claim that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium from Niger. This was the first time a public claim regarding this intelligence was made. Ari Fleischer, speaking about the British dossier, said "We agree with their findings."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/12/ndoss12.xml/

Britain: Blair government caught out in plagiarism and lies over latest Iraq dossier

By Chris Marsden
10 February 2003


The February 6 edition of Channel Four news led with an exposure of extensive plagiarism by the Blair Labour government in its latest intelligence dossier on Iraq released on February 3.

The document was singled out for praise by US Secretary of State Colin Powell during his February 5 address to the United Nations Security Council, where he presented Washington’s own intelligence claiming Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction and alleged efforts to thwart UN inspectors.

Powell cited the British dossier, Iraq—its infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation as additional proof of Iraqi non-compliance, stating, “I would call my colleagues’ attention to the fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed ... which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities.”

The 19-page document is presented as a product of up-to-the-minute British intelligence gathering. It says it is compiled from intelligence material “and other sources” and is an “up-to-date intelligence-led dossier”. But it is nothing of the sort. The bulk was plagiarised from just three articles, one of which was written by an American graduate student, all of which are months and even years old.

So sloppy is the plagiarism that typographic mistakes in the original articles are repeated, indicating that they were scanned in or cut and paste from the Internet.

One of the articles copied was published in the Middle East Review of International Affairs last year and is the work of Ibrahim al-Marashi, a postgraduate student from Monterey in California who is now a research associate at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Large sections, as much as six paragraphs long, appear verbatim.

Changes that are made are in order to dress Iraqi actions up in more sinister mode. Thus “monitoring” foreign embassies becomes “spying” on them and “aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes” becomes “supporting terrorist organisations in hostile regimes”.

To make matters worse, the plagiarised article is based on intelligence gathered as long ago as the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991 and is meant as a description of the build up to the last Gulf War.

The author told the press, “The primary documents I used for this article are a collection of two sets of documents, one taken from Kurdish rebels in the north of Iraq—around 4 million documents—as well as 300,000 documents left by Iraqi security services in Kuwait. After that, I have been following events in the Iraqi security services for the last 10 years.”

Yet in the government dossier, this information is presented as a contemporary description gathered by British intelligence. The document claims that UN weapons inspectors are outnumbered by 200 to one by Iraqi agents trying to deceive them, and that it provides “up to date details” of Iraq’s security organisations.

Glen Rangwala, a lecturer in politics at Cambridge University, first spotted the plagiarism. He told Channel Four news, “The British Government’s dossier is 19 pages long and most of pages 6 to 16 are copied directly from document word for word, even the grammatical errors and typographical mistakes.”

“Apart from passing this off as the work of its intelligence services,” Dr Rangwala said, “it indicates that the UK really does not have any independent sources of information on Iraq’s internal policies. It just draws upon publicly available data.”

Six more pages—sixteen of the 19 total—rely heavily on articles by Sean Boyne and Ken Gause that appeared in Jane’s Intelligence Review in 1997 and last November. None of these sources is acknowledged. No attribution is made. The authors of the dossier were instead initially named as four Whitehall officials, P Hamill, J Pratt, A Blackshaw and M Khan, but their names were removed from the government’s web site on February 3.

Defence and foreign policy analysts were scathing in their criticism of the government’s black propaganda. Dan Plesch of the Royal United Services Institute said on Channel Four news, “This appears to be obsolete academic analysis dressed up as the best MI6 and our other international partners can produce on Saddam.”

He added, “The word ‘scandalous’ is, I think, greatly overused in our political life but it certainly applies to this.”

The government has dismissed criticisms from the media and the opposition parties, with a spokesman declaring that the report was accurate and that there had never been a claim of “exclusivity of authorship.” But given the government’s self-appointed role as purveyors of war-propaganda in the guise of various “intelligence dossiers”, the revelations are a serious blow to its credibility.

[SaveElmer]

22. Well if you can provide me with one citation...

I'll be glad to look at it. I did a Lexis Nexis search and came up with nothing...


As to your second article I am certain, in fact if you read the statemenst by Democrats you will see that information such as presented in this article were taken into consideration...including the opinions of Scott Ritter.

However, this article is hardly authoritative...and again you have provided a 2003 reference...

[Dr Fate]

24. It is from a British news investigative report from 1 day after powell lied.

A report that was never debunked or even questioned as far as accuracy- as it was 100% accurate.

Any DEM could have read it if they had bothered to do a 15 minute google search.

And you claim they considered these known lies & forgeries and still defended their yes vote anyway?

So how were they "taking Bush at his word" if this is a fact?

If they had protested and highlighted this info BEFORE we invaded, you might have an argument.

[SaveElmer]

25. Ok...once again...

Colin Powell's testimony was Feb 5, 2003....

The IWR was approved October 2002...

In fact this bolsters CalPundits point in defense of Clark that the responsibility for this fiasco lies with Bush. It could be argued the IWR was working when Powell went to the U.N. in 2003.

Do you have any authoritative citations from 2002 that would have made it unconscienable for Senators to accept the testimony of George Tenet or Colin Powell?

[Dr Fate]

26. But you make the claim that "yes" voters & DEM war supporters "took Bush at his word"

If this is truly the case, then show me the statements where the "yes" voters who "took Bush at his word" retracted this postion based on trust once they had access to the truth- that they can NOT take a presenter of forged documents at his word.

How many of the "yes" voters who "took Bush at his word" took back their support that you claim was based on this trust, once they learned he was lying? If you can show me those DEMS, then your argument is iron clad.

Sorry- but a "yes" vote can only be seen as "taking Bush at his word" if the same "yes" voters vocally and publically took back their position once they knew Powell was lying.

Powell made his speech BEFORE the invasion- and "yes" voting DEMS had the power to point out his lies on TV or on the floor of congress- instead they will have us believe that they "took bush at his word."

I dont recall any DEMS insisting on a new vote after they learned that they couldnt take him at his word- they could have EASILY made the case that a new vote based on the facts was warranted-instead they just went along with it.

[SaveElmer]

28. Ok...so we are on the same page...

That this evidence was not available to Democrats at the time of the IWR vote...is that correct?

I will follow up with links on the many denunciations of Bush when it became clear his "evidence" was a pack of lies...

But first have to pick up the young one at school.

[Dr Fate]

29. "yes" voting DEMS knew of it BEFORE the invasion and did nothing.

Therefore we are not on the same page and we disagree that DEMS who continued to support the war after their "yes" votes were "taking Bush at his word."

[SaveElmer]

30. Do you acknowledge...

That they did not have this info before the IWR vote?

[Dr Fate]

32. Do you acknowledege that they had the info BEFORE the invasion yet still supported it?

???

This fact means that the excuse that war supporters were "taking Bush at his word" is bogus- unless they did indeed protest and demanded a new vote after learning this.

I do acknowledge that I got my timeline mixed up- I was in error that the vote occurred after Powell's speech- so thank you for clearing that up- but it does not change my position that "yes" voting DEMS still ignored the facts when it came to public debate and cant honestly use "I trusted Bush" as an excuse for their continued support of the war.

This was my mistake- I get my Bush lies mixed up- I must be thinking of all the OTHER Bush lies that DEMS should have known about BEFORE the vote- ones higlighted by Scott Ritter and others.

I honestly acknowledged my mistake- now will you answer the question in my headline?

[SaveElmer]

34. Thanks...

I will respond, but have to pick up the munchkin...I will come back to this when I return!

[Dr Fate]

35. And we also need to discuss the other Bush lies that were known before the vote...

This was my mistake- I get my Bush lies mixed up- I must be thinking of all the OTHER Bush lies that DEMS should have known about BEFORE the vote- ones higlighted by Scott Ritter and others.

My mistake was due to the fact that Bush lied about Iraq SOOO much, I forgot which lies were told before the vote and which ones were told afterwards- in any event "taking Bush at his word" was and is laughable at ANY point.

In any event, DEMS had the chance to correct their positons on their "yes" votes AFTER they learned of Powell's lies and BEFORE the invasion-please show me where this was done.

The date of knowledge of Powell's lies does not get anyone off the hook- especially when public & politial support for the war went well beyond a "yes" vote with many DEMS.

It must be assumed that if any "yes" voter did not call for a public debate Powell's lies and then DEMAND a re-evaluation or re-vote after he learned of Powell's lies- then he or she would have supported the invasion anyway-and it had nothing to do with "taking Bush at his word."

[FrenchieCat]

23. I don't think that Wes Clark ever denied that he supported the Levin Amendment......

once there was no arguing that there would be a resolution, one way or another. Clark supported the least harmful and the most restrictive of all of the choices available in where the President would have to come back to congress after a UN security council vote. That is no secret, nor has Wes Clark ever denied this.

Even in the piece that Nagourney wrote in the NYT announcing that Clark "probably" would have voted for the IWR, what it actually says within the article is....

"General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading."

Again, that is consistent with all that the General has said about the type of leverage that Bush should have gotten. Leverage with an initial resolution to go to the U.N., not a blank check.

there is a difference, even if some would prefer there wasn't.

On September 16, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization to use force, "Don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation?" CNN 9/16/02

WOODRUFF: How much difference does it make, the wording of these resolution or resolutions that Congress would pass in terms of what the president is able to do after?

CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do.

So I think the -- what people say is, don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.

And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent if we are able to put the specifics into the resolution.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/ip.00.html

Here's is Ted Kennedy on Larry King pretty recently....

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."
snip
There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

and Sen. Levin, the author of the amendment that Wes Clark supported....here's what he said on the floor of the Senate BEFORE THE IWR VOTE when he submitted his own resolution THAT WASN'T A BLANK CHECK...:

"General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htm

And Clark stated recently on a radio program...

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, you know, I went to several Senators, including I think a couple who later ran for office, and, for the Presidency. I said, "Don't believe him." (laughs) "He's made up his mind to go to war. Don't give him a blank check."

Al Franken: Mm Hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But they gave him a blank check. I said it on CNN, "You can't give him a blank check." And I said it in the testimony that you have to make sure that there's a resolution. It's got to be a broad resolution so we can go to the United Nations, but it doesn't and shouldn't be a blank check.
http://securingamerica.com/node/932

I don't believe that Wes Clark would make the vote on the IWR a Lithmus test for the candidacy of the presidency, as he himself didn't have a vote and has honestly voiced oftentime enough that this was a difficult issue and it would be difficult for him to say without a doubt what he would have done. However, Wes Clark, for his credit, did do what he could to slow down the march to war and to attempt to explain the difficulties that such an undertaking in the disaster that it could easily become. He did not ever articulate an urgency, or suspicions that Saddam was an imminent threat to the United States. He worked actively to the last day to have Senators vote for the most restrictive of the resolutions offered, and kept hammering at the fact that time was on our side, that we should use force only as a last resort after all diplomatic avenue had been earnestly tried, and that getting inspectors back on the ground could achieve more than using force and invading. He always stressed that Iraq was a secondary problem best dealt via the United Nations and that the United States should concentrate on the problem that he felt was at hand; Al Qeada considering the attack on our nation. In other words, Wes Clark was a voice of reason who never thought that invading Iraq would bring stability to the region....and in fact oftentime detailed exactly how we would fail in our attempt.

However, that doesn't mean that those who voted for it are all in the clear, regardless of "apologies" years later.

There were some who voted for the IWR for political reasons. Maybe because they had a previous "NO" vote on the 1st Gulf War and/or needed to have a National Defense vote on record that would show strength in that arena, so that opponents couldn't make that politician look "weak" on this subject considering that this was just one year after 9/11 . Others still actually were in fear of being defeated in the mid-term election based on their geographical location and so they voted for the resolution, when they might otherwise vote against it. Yet other still actually believed that invading Iraq was a good idea, and that it would somehow bring stability to the Middle East and would not be a complicated endeavor and that it would also protect Israel....

My point is that different political critters voted for the IWR for different reasons, and looking at why they voted for it is more fruitful than looking at them all squashed together and stating that they all wanted war. One who can honestly say that they voted for it for political reasons means that this person knew better (if nothing else)....and even though the vote was wrong, at least there is a rational that doesn't have anything to do with just being plain uninformed, but rather it is a sign of having taken a political gamble which in the end they lost.

Those who voted for this resolution because they really believed what Bush was saying or felt that the intelligence was supporting the idea that Iraq was a threat to this country...well, they are beyond redemption of any kind in my book for being rewarded to a higher office because they were woefully ignorant of facts that were out there. Their apology is accepted, but their lack of judgement on important affairs of war and peace are not excused or forgotten.

In the end, we were dealing with a ruthless President and administration who were bent on going to war. The bottomline of good judgement is who could see this clearly and who had no clue as to the treacherousness of this administration. I realize that some will say that voting "Aye" if one knew better was a bigger crime....but that is where I will say that would have depended of how bad of an apple you judged the President at that time. There were some that firmly believe that the United Nations might be able to exert some control over the situation....and others yet that felt that the consequences wouldn't be as dire as they have turned out.....

[SaveElmer]

27. There is no doubt the IWR was the wrong decision...

And I do not believe Clark was prevaricating when he made his public statements on the IWR...

I am simply saying that each legislator has to make a judgement call about the evidence placed before them...not everyone evaluates that evidence the same way...

Clark was not disputing the need to use the threat of force to get inspections moving again, only that he believed there needed to be an explicit approval of the actual use of force after certification by Bush that Iraq was not cooperating. I agreed with that at the time myself.

But Clark has not gone on to denounce Democrats who voted for the IWR as traitors, DINO's etc...

In fact he was one of John Kerry's foreign policy advisors in the 2004 campaign, when Kerry was still defending his vote.

As CalPundit points out Clark has shown integrity on the question by recognizing the legitimacy of arguments made in favor of a proposal he would oppose..

I agree with CalPundit that "...we could use more of that instead of the scorched earth tactics in which every possible argument from your opposites is deemed both absurd and fraudulent."

[Contrite]

38. What I Knew Before the Invasion (Graham)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html


From my advantaged position, I had earlier concluded that a war with Iraq would be a distraction from the successful and expeditious completion of our aims in Afghanistan. Now I had come to question whether the White House was telling the truth -- or even had an interest in knowing the truth.

On Oct. 11, I voted no on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptor. Most of my colleagues could not.

Linked from: http://www.awesclarkdemocrat.com/2006/12/can_the_apologetics_dems_you_v.htm#more

[SaveElmer]

39. Yet in his floor statement he was pretty sure Saddam had WMD's

Saddam Hussein’s regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capability.

He did cast doubt on the Bush assertion that Iraq was a significant way down the road to acquiring nuclear capability, but did not question the assertion that Saddam had chamical and biological weapons, or that Saddam was making an effort to acquire Nuclear.

[Contrite]

40. He certainly wasn't alone (Graham)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

And he later stated the IWR wasn't strong enough:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030113&s=crowley011303

How can anyone believably state that the Democrats who voted yes did not have access to enough information to doubt the assertions about Iraq's WMD?

[SaveElmer]

41. I don't understand your point...

And unfortunately I do not have a subscription to TNR...

However your snopes link simply proves my point...

There were good reasons to vote against the IWR...but for most opponents, one of them, AT THE TIME, was not an assertion that Iraq did not have WMD's. As I have pointed out even opponents of the IWR belived they did...

[Contrite]

42. That is my point

As you said, the opponents and opponents both asserted as much. And even Graham, having access to all the classified information, did so too. He knew that Tenet's declassified NIE obfuscated the fact that there were ample doubts.

They all had ample reason to doubt it, and should all have therefore voted against.

[SaveElmer]

43. The NIE...

Was not declassified until July 2003...

[Contrite]

44. Oh, I see

I had thought it was prior to the invasion. Therefore, not everyone had access to the classified information.

What I would like to know is, since Bob Graham had background enough from the classified version to question its assertions, why did he not challenge the declassified version?

The American people needed to know these reservations, and I requested that an unclassified, public version of the NIE be prepared. On Oct. 4, Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version. Its conclusions, such as "If Baghdad acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year," underscored the White House's claim that exactly such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq.

So, this is not true, as the page at the second link asserts: http://intelligence.senate.gov/members107thcongress.html?

"I thought of something this morning that Senator Carl Levin said during a conference of Clark supporters last year. Someone had asked him if those Senators who voted for the IWR had access at the time to all available intelligence. (The Levin Amendment was the one Wes Clark supported; it called for a second vote once the administration had gone through the UN.) Levin was unequivocal in his answer: Yes.

They all voted based on the same intelligence that was available to, say, the Senate Armed Services Committee or the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, more than half of the Democratic members of which, and not including John Edwards, voted against the IWR."

And if it is true, why did not everyone who had access to the classified information vote "no"?

[Dr Fate]

11. The only language I need to analyze is "yes" vs. "no."

I forgive Kerry and Edwards- since they have admitted their vote was a mistake..

However- I agree with you that arguing over semantics is a dead end- the only language swing voters and non-political moderates will ever consider is "did he vote 'yes'-or did he vote 'no'?"- Period.

If they voted "yes" and have not apologized or admitted their mistake, then I have a huge problem (Hillary- are you listening?)

[LittleClarkie]

31. Oh, so " my bad" is good enough for you?

You're not going to beat Kerry and Edwards over the head repeatedly with their vote for all eternity?

What kind of activist ARE you?!

(I keed! I keed!)

[Dr Fate]

33. I wont kick former "yes" voters who are now on my side to the curb.

I am sure we will agree.

[LittleClarkie]

36. Oh, but of course.

I'm just alittle caffine deprived (depraved?). Don't mind me.

[Dr Fate]

37. LOL! We have similar issues-Now you know why my posts are so frantic!!! n/t

n/t