Clinton and Byrd are Seeking Revocation of the Wrong War Resolution

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22145

Clinton and Byrd are Seeking Revocation of the Wrong War Resolution
Submitted by dlindorff on Fri, 2007-05-04 14:58. Impeachment

By Dave Lindorff

If Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Robert Byrd (D-WV) really want to bring this Bush/Cheney administration to heel, they should be calling not for revocation of the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), but for the revocation of the 2001 AUMF.

The 2002 AUMF is the resolution Congress passed, in a panicky moment of electoral fear in October 2002, essentially giving Bush support for his war plans against Iraq. It wasn’t really a war resolution, as it contained conditionals, such as getting the backing of the UN Security Council, which the president never obtained, but nonetheless, Bush has cited it as the “declaration of war” that justified his invasion of Iraq fully five months later (probably the longest gap between a war declaration and an actual war in the history of government and warfare).

Revoking this sorry AUMF might be a moral victory for a legislative body that has an oxymoronic relationship with the M word, and might provide some cover to cowardly politicians like Clinton, who chose to support the resolution despite clear evidence that the president was lying through his teeth about the alleged threat posed by Iraq. But it won’t end the war. With troops already in harm’s way in Iraq, the president doesn’t need an AUMF to keep them there. So it’s all symbolic.

The 2001 AUMF is something else altogether.

Passed on September 18, just a week after the 9-11 attacks, the 2001 AUMF was Congress’ authorization for the U.S. to invade Afghanistan and to go after Al Qaeda.

more...

[MethuenProgressive]

1. Really? I still support the AUMF agin bin Laden. And so should we all.

JMO, YMMV.

[Hart2008]

2. Not again! Do I need to post the text of the IWR here again?

Read the text of the two resolutions, not the interpretations.

[mmonk]

3. The administration's interpretation may differ.

"Al Queda" is there now and Iraq is the central front on the war on "terror".

[mike_c]

4. the only "conditional" in the IWR was that Bush alert Congress in writing...

...within 48 hrs of "determining" it necessary to invade Iraq. All else was preamble and blank check for war.

[w4rma]

5. It's just a photo-op for Hillary and for Bush to veto. If it's not a condition on a bill Bush has

to sign then it won't get past Bush's veto until the next President (who I fully expect to be a Republican President if Hillary or Obama win the nomination).

[draft_mario_cuomo]

8. I agree. If she truly opposes the war she will vote to stop financing it when the next bill comes up

[tritsofme]

6. There were no conditions in the Iraq AUMF

That is only the view of people trying to cover the asses and make excuses for the people who voted in favor of it.

[Hart2008]

7. The IWR was a "statutory authorization" under the War Powers Act.

Defunding is now the only option to end the occupation, short of impeachment.

[tritsofme]

9. I agree completely

But those who still contend that the IWR placed conditions on Bush's authority to go to war are lying through there teeth.

All that was needed was his "determination" and that's what our friends in Congress voted for.

[dave_p]

10. Correct

Folk need to read the thing again... and again... and again.

Stop the funding now. Congress doesn't have to vote anything. It just has to stop voting the war.