An honest question - was a vote for the IWR a vote for war, or something else?

[Skip Intro]

I remember hearing and reading that the vote was given to give bush the power to attack if all other avenues failed. I remember Kerry saying that his vote was to put pressure on bush to utilize diplomatic channels. I remember too that some members of the Senate, and of the House, were misled by the bush regime, as was the country, as to the reality of the (non-existent) threat posed by Iraq.

So when it is said that this congressman or this senator voted "for the war" - is that actually accurate?

[Justitia]

1. Well, what is the actual title of IWR? There's your answer. -eom

[LSparkle]

2. Well, the "W" stands for war so I think they had to know it was a possibility

They gave him a blank check, just like Robert Byrd said at the time ... I think some of them doubted RatBastard would have the arrogance to avoid going back to the U.N. a second time. They were HORRIBLE judges of character, IMHO. If I could see how much of a liar he was (right from the first moments I heard "uniter not divider" and "compassionate conservative"), then why oh why did they give him the benefit of the doubt?

[laugle]

43. The answer to your last question is 911,911,911!

Nobody wanted to be seen as weak on terrorism, especially Hillary, since the attack on 911 was in her state.

[liberalmuse]

3. It was a vote to give Bush a blank check.

There really should be no bones about that. Up until that vote, Bush and his cronies had already more than proven they could not be trusted to make a sound decision. You'd have to have your head up your ass to believe otherwise, especially if you were a politico who should have had access to all the latest information on this issue. Hell, if you were simply conscious during that period, you should have known Bush was resigned to starting a Gulf War II.

[NI4NI]

6. About the UN Resolutions

I know there were many UN Resolutions mentioned against Iraq (one of which calling for Iraqi disarmenent of WMD's which didn't exist so I'm not sure how that could have been accomplished) BUT, there never was a UN Resolution calling for the invasion.

[JANdad]

4. You tell me...

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.
___________________________________________________________
This is Bush's war...

[ProSense]

5. It's absolutely incorrect and the media uses it all the time.

To say it was a vote for war is no different from people now claiming that Bush's FISA law protects American rights (the GOP spin). All the facts point to the contrary.

Facts on the IWR here and here.

[hedgehog]

7. All I know is that I thought at the time that it was a vote for war.

Did anyone honestly believe that George wasn't going to get his war on? I can remember comparing the lack of debate this time to the debate that occurred when George the 1st wen t to war and finding it unbelievable that so many voted to allow this.

[stillcool]

8. Personally...I find it very hard...

to believe that a United States Senator or Congressperson could be 'duped' into believing any of the horse-shit rationale for war at that time...but that's just me. I think the common excuses for the vote...ie., 'I gave the president the authority to exercise all options, and only use war as a last resort', an easy out..and to continue to hearken back to that as a rationale disingenuous. It's kind of like assuming they..as well as the administration..are and were ignorant.

[ProSense]

10. That's irrelevant!

Whether or not they believed the intelligence has nothing to do with Bush violating the IWR. It had conditions and he lied to get around them. Think about it, he went to war anyway after being called on the faulty evidence. Bush was going to war anyway, like everything else he's done illegally, the IWR had nothing to do with it.

[SOS]

13. There were NO conditions in the AUMF.

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.

There were NO CONDITIONS. The Congress merely "supported the efforts" to enforce UNSC resolutions. It's empty, meaningless rhetoric.

Bush could not possibly violate the AUMF because he alone was given sole authority to invade:

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.

Authorized as he determines. How exactly did he violate that?

[ProSense]

14. Yes there were, here are two right there in your post:

(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.

[SOS]

20. Sorry, but those are not legally binding conditions

You omitted the only sentence that matters in Section 3:

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--

As HE DETERMINES to be necessary.

No legally binding conditions, no possible violation.

[ProSense]

23. Yes they are.

The resolution was legally binding, which is why people like John Dean states that in violating it, Bush has committed an impeachable offense.

Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?

[SOS]

30. Of course the resolution was legally binding.

The nitwits in the Congress passed it, Bush signed it. It legally authorized Bush to invade Iraq whenever he damn well pleased.

But we're not talking about the resolution in toto! We are talking about the non-existent "conditions".

The "conditions" (Sec 3 a 1 and 2) are NOT legally binding, hence they are not conditions at all.

Seriously, if Bush had violated the "conditions" of this law, don't you think one person in America (Kucinich? Byrd? Kennedy?) would have pointed that out by now?

[ProSense]

35. I think you need to check your facts straight,

many have!

[SOS]

42. So far you have defended your incorrect assertions

with an article by a grossly misinformed blogger and a completely irrelevant article by John Dean.
Talk about needing a fact checker!

[ProSense]

44. grossly misinformed blogger? huh? n/t

[stillcool]

15. exactly. and I find it hard to believe...

that members of Congress were not aware of the oil in Iraq, and the decades spent trying to establish pipelines, and pipeline routes with the various governments in the region. Nor do I think they were unaware of Russia and China's interest in the region.

[Milo_Bloom]

9. It was a vote for war.

There were absolutely NO checks and balances in it, and no requirement for diplomacy.

The resolution contains language that makes its intentions VERY clear.

"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 American 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; "


(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.


Notice nothing is "suspected", it is stated as "FACT" The resolution definitively ties Al Qaida to Iraq (something for which no actual evidence was ever presented and was proven completely false) and then ties Iraq to 9/11 (something we all KNEW at the time was patently false.).

The authorization paragraph labels Iraq a "continuing threat" and gives the US unilateral power to enforce UN resolutions.

The resolution stated, AS FACT the follow:

#1) Iraq has weapons of mass distruction
#2) Iraq is providing aid to Al Qaida
#3) Iraq has and will continue to attack America.
#4) Iraq is capable of supplying WMD to the terrorist they are harboring
#5) The President is authorized to use force to stop these things.

However, 1-4 were completely false, but this resolution stated them as true. #2 and #3 were known to be false even at the time. #1 and #4 were in serious doubt at the time.

But, lets cut to the chase.

If you believe and sign that 1-4 are true, you are going to war with that country.. no questions asked.

[ProSense]

12. No it wasn't!

George Bush sought a congressional resolution authorizing force and secured it on Oct. 10, 2002. That resolution explicitly restricted the use of force to compelling adherence with “relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions,” and continuing threats from Iraq. This was not a blanket declaration of war. The resolution’s contingent authority evaporates if its conditions are not met.

link

You're interpretation is faulty and Bush himself couldn't use it!

[Milo_Bloom]

28. READ THE TEXT. Not the SPIN, the actual text

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

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm

NO RESTRICTIONS.

NO LIMITATION.

[ProSense]

38. Yes, read it and stop spinning"

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 there after 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...

That's pretty much how resolutions are written. I don't see anywhere that it says the president can lie and present manipulated evidence to Congress.

His determination doesn't mean his opinion, he needed to present facts.

[SOS]

45. Are you unaware that Bush delivered his determination

to Congress two days before the invasion?

Apparently you are, so here it is:

Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker:

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) 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.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

He was not required to present any facts. He made his determination and delivered that determination to Congress within the specified time frame.

[ProSense]

46. Are you reading any of

the links I'm posting?

[Milo_Bloom]

48. Links to incorrect spin mean nothing.

The answers all rest within the TEXT OF THE RESOLUTION.

That is the black letter law and that is all that should be read.

[ProSense]

49. What's incorrect spin:

The letter Bush issued or the signing statement?

[Milo_Bloom]

50. That the resolution contains any restrictions.

It contains none. It STATES absolute facts (Iraq providing support to Al Queda, etc..) (many of which were known to be false at the time).

And then leaves the determination for war in Bush's hands, asking him for absolutely nothing more than his reasoning.

Stating anything other than that is complete, total, spin.

[Milo_Bloom]

47. Wrong, read it.

The resolution already contained the FACTS. It stated the facts very clearly as I already laid out.

The only thing the resolution asks him to do is deliver his REASONING. It doesn't even ask for it BEFORE going to war, he can go to war and then give reasons 48 hours later. It doesn't even have any restrictions upon what that determination can be. His opinion is ALL that was required in this resolution.

[ProSense]

52. A determination is not an opinion

it needs to be back up with facts. If it was simply an opinion, the letter would have read: Dear Congress, I'm going to war because I think Saddam is a bad man. He would not have gone through the trouble of manufacturing evidence and presenting it to Congress. That would be like delivering incriminating evidence when it's not required.

[Milo_Bloom]

54. Wrong. Read... The .... TEXT!

A determination, is just that, drawing a conclusion. It doesn't need to state facts http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Determination.

The facts are already stated in the text of the IWR.

From the resolution, here are the FACTS

"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 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 American citizens; "

Those things are stated as FACTS in the resolution. By voting for the resolution, one supports THOSE FACTS AS STATED.

The determination requires no facts... just plain old opinion.

And that is a FACT.

[ProSense]

57. That doesn't define a determination as

an opinion. It states based on logic drawing a conclusion. Again, the requirement was a report to congress, which is why Bush provided evidence.

[Milo_Bloom]

60. No, he didn't.

He didn't supply any evidence to congress. Just a "determination" which was all he was required to supply, as the resolution itself stated all the facts that were necessary.


Read the document.

[ProSense]

63. I did, did you:

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

link

[Milo_Bloom]

66. So?

The fact that he offered more than required means what exactly?

[ProSense]

68. You said he didn't offer any, and then asked me if I read it.

He did, and I did!

[Milo_Bloom]

70. I said he didn't HAVE TO!

And he didn't. As per the text of the resolution.

[ProSense]

72. He did, he did!

He did it because he was required to. Bush isn't in the habit of giving Congress gifts.

[Milo_Bloom]

74. Nope. Find it in the text!

The text states EXACTLY the opposite of what you claim it does.

[ProSense]

53. Restriction:

(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.

That does not say determination to go after Saddam for the hell of it.

[Milo_Bloom]

55. Yes it does...

The resolution states, "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; "

And then..

"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.
"

Right there is all the justification necessary. The resolution states, in its own text, all the facts necessary.

It is a declaration of war on its very face.

[ProSense]

58. No it isn't, this was one of the most restricting such

resolution ever. So, again, it was not a declaration of war.

[Milo_Bloom]

62. Stop spinning and Read the TEXT.

The resolution is a declaration of war on its face.

It states as facts

Iraq is a threat. Iraq has WMD. Iraq is working with Al Queda.

It then gives authorization to deal with that threat with absolutely NO RESTRICTIONS.

It was a declaration of war with absolutely no restrictions at all.

[ProSense]

64. No

only if it was an imminent threat to U.S. national security and to enforce the U.N. resolutions.

[Milo_Bloom]

67. Not stated in the text! Yeah, you still have to READ THE TEXT!

Unfortunately, that isn't what was written in the next.

"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. "

Nothing about an imminent threat at all. In fact, exactly the opposite... it satisfies the threat in the statement.

[ProSense]

65. Also, if this was simply his opinion,

why would anyone be interested in holding hearings to determine if Bush intentionally manipulated the evidence?

If the Democrats in and out of Congress would cut the political charade long enough (they all been dancing around withdrawal, from Hillary vote against Kerry-Feingold to Obama declaring it "precipitous" (and voting against it), they could hold Bush accountable for the one thing left that they haven't squandered away: his violation of the IWR in order to launch an illegal war.

It's Bush's war!

[Milo_Bloom]

69. You are kidding, right??

The hearings would be about the intelligence presented BEFORE the resolution.

The resolution is a declaration of war on its face.

[ProSense]

71. The hearing would be about all the evidence including

the sixteen words in the SOTU and the evidence presented to Congress prior to the invasion.

Understand this: Congress didn't declare war. That is why the big stink about the war.

[Milo_Bloom]

73. The resolution WAS a declaration of WAR on its face!

Face it. It made statements OF FACT about Iraq.

It authorized war BASED ON THOSE FACTS ALONE.

It had NO PRE-REQUISITE for war. None.

You can't hide from this.

[ProSense]

75. Leahy, seven day before the illegal invasion

I cannot pretend to understand the thinking of those in the Administration who for months or even longer have seemed possessed with a kind of messianic zeal in favor of war. A preemptive war against Iraq without a declaration of war by Congress or the UN Security Council’s support, may be easy to win, but it could violate international law and cause lasting damage to our alliances and to our ability to obtain the cooperation of other nations in meeting so many other global challenges.

link

[Milo_Bloom]

76. READ... THE... TEXT...

That's all you have to do. no spinning or backtracking or statements after the fact change what is written in the TEXT, THE BLACK LETTER LAW ON THE BOOKS.

The resolution stated Iraq was a threat and gave the president permission to use force to deal with that threat, with NO PRE-REQUISITE.

That's the reality you are trying to spin your way out of.

[ProSense]

78. This text:

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) 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.

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 there after 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 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.

(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 resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) 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 2 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 Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) 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 Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of 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 Public Law 102-1.

This is the text!

There was no threat to national security and Bush didn't comply with the U.N. resolution.

[Milo_Bloom]

81. The threat is stated IN THE TEXT THAT YOU WON'T READ!

The text of the resolution STATED THAT IRAQ WAS A THREAT!

Wonder why you didn't copy the whole resolution?


"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"

There it is, in black and white. It states, on its face, that Iraq posses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States.

It also states that Iraq is in violation of UN resolutions and goes on to state the use of force is ALREADY AUTHORIZED BY THE UN.

"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 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 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);"


That's it. The two "conditions" are satisfied WITHIN THE DOCUMENT ITSELF.

NOTHING FURTHER WAS REQUIRED, no spinning by you changes that fact.

So, next time you want to try and spin, try it with someone who isn't going to actually read the document you are lying about.

[ProSense]

83. That is stating the history of the tensions and circumstances that led to the resolution.

I've read it a million times. The criteria begins here:

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) 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.

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...

[Milo_Bloom]

87. LMAO!! Dizzy from the spin.

You are totally insane in your spin.

Let me get your claim straight. The fact that the resolution makes clear statements of fact, they aren't actually supposed to be taken as fact? That are just vague comments, right?

That is the story you are trying to sell to somehow absolve someone of responsibility?

Wow, that is some powerful stupid pills you are taking if you actually believe it.

I know you don't actually believe it, but are just carrying water for some candidate who is trying to explain away what they voted for, but you better come up with a better cover story than the idiocy you are trying to sell here.

[ProSense]

89. No they are taken as fact, the part I highlighted

are the criteria for action laid out by this resolution.

That's the point you seem to be missing.

[Milo_Bloom]

90. Is that bucket getting heavy?

Whatever one you are carrying to try and explain away clear black letter on the books law?

The criteria for action laid out by the resolution is satisfied in the text of the resolution.

That is why it is a declaration of war on its face.

You can't run from it, it is just the way it is.

[ProSense]

92. That's not what Leahy said.

You're getting upset and trying to prove that the IWR is a declaration of war. It wasn't. It will not be referenced as a declaration of war any where in Congressional or historical records.

[Milo_Bloom]

96. But it was, and we both know it.

The black letter law, is the black letter law and history will call it exactly what it was... A declaration of war on its face.

[SOS]

11. It was a vote

to give Bush the sole authority to determine whether "peaceful means" were insufficient to protect the US from the "threat" posed by Iraq.
Technically it was not a vote "for war". It was a vote to allow Bush to attack Iraq whenever he felt like it.

[karynnj]

21. Only if Bush violated the promises made and made a mockery of

of what constitutes a threat.

[Jimdish25]

16. It Was Because The Democrats Bailed

They didn't have the guts to challenge shrub on the war. It was as cowardly as this weekends vote on warrantless spying.

Oh. I forgot, "HI ALBERTO, HOW YOU DOIN TONIGHT BRO"

[Gregorian]

17. And then there's Wiki

The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "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." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." UN members commented it is not up to one member state to interpret and enforce UN resolutions. Subsequently Kofi Anan remarked that these arguments do not constitute the legal requirements set forth in the laws of war prohibiting wars of aggression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution



Also, I might add, that the resolution requires Bush to check in with Congress every so often to report. I know that's vague. But I'm just saying it is far from a blank check.

[karynnj]

18. President Bush himself said that it was not a vote to go to war

as did many people in his administration. He had publicly said what he would do - than failed to do it. He said that being able to show the world he had bi-partisan support in Congress would give him more leverage in getting Saddam to allow the truely invasive inspections needed. (In the past, there had been problems of some places being off limits and advance warning given.)

[CTLawGuy]

19. the resolution empowered Bush to go to war

if he, and only he, with no standards, oversight, review or veto of his decision, determined that diplomatic measures wouldn't work.

Congress put the warmaking power completely within the discretion of the president, which is essentially a vote for war.

Since Congress has the constitutional power to decide when to go to war, it is vicariously responsible if it delegates that power to the president.

[ProSense]

22. No it didn't

Congress put the warmaking power completely within the discretion of the president...]

Bunk! Otherwise, Bush would not have had to report back to Congress, and he would not have had to lie in his letter and evidence.

There is also the matter of enforcing the UN resolution, which he violated also.

[CTLawGuy]

25. Congress had no real subsequent power to stop the president

from going to war, "reports" notwithstanding. What in that resolution was supposed to restrict the president from just declaring that diplomacy didn't work?

[ProSense]

29. Congress can't stop a president from going to war,

they can hold him accountable, and demand that he end it. Only Congress can declare war, but a president has the power to start a war in the interest of national security, an imminent attack.

[CTLawGuy]

34. wrong

the president can command the troops, but only congress can start the war.

Not only is a resolution a de facto declaration of war, but warmaking is a legislative function (it's deciding a policy) which is within the scope of Congress' duty.

[ProSense]

36. What?

The order for war is given by the president. Have you forgotten Clinton?

[CTLawGuy]

105. there are certain emergency circumstances

under which the president can initiate force. I believe Clinton had an AUMF resolution as well to go into Kosovo.

[JANdad]

24. Please read the following:

Your Comment: "with no standards, oversight, review"

The IWR Text: 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

Sounds to me like "Standards, oversight and review" were built in...BUSH LIED

[CTLawGuy]

26. that just says that he has to show his determination to congress

that gives NO standards or oversight whatsoever. It doesn't say Congress can reject the determination, and it doesn't say under what circumstances the president can make the determination.

It even says, in the part you highlighted, that he can make the determination 48 hours AFTER he goes to war. How does THAT suggest any real oversight or veto power??

Denial runs rampant...

[ProSense]

31. You are the one misunderstanding the process.

The letter Bush wrote to Congress expressed his determination and was accompanied by evidence (required), which was manipulated.

He did not listen to anyone, and there were a few who spoke out publicly that the requirements were not met, specifically the imminent treat and the U.N. resolutions.

He launched the war anyway.

[CTLawGuy]

33. where in the IWR was evidence required???

also the imminent threat was presumed true in the resolution itself,

and the authority to enforce UN resolutions and protect from the "imminent threat" was so vague that it was impossible to do anything outside of that scope.

[ProSense]

61. See my previous posts.

I could stay here all night reposting the same thing over and over and you would continue asking the same questions.

Congress didn't declare war, Bush violated the IWR. Period!

[CTLawGuy]

106. it would be nice if your previous post said where evidence was required

but they don't. Perhaps you'd like to post where in the IWR it requires that the president have evidence one more time.

Or if its easier, reference one of your other posts where you DO post this information.

[Milo_Bloom]

77. None was required

"and the authority to enforce UN resolutions and protect from the "imminent threat" was so vague that it was impossible to do anything outside of that scope. "

There was also no use of imminent threat in the text of the resolution. The resolution talked only of "CONTINUING THREAT" not imminent. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm

(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.

[ProSense]

79. That is simply your misinterpretation

George Bush sought a congressional resolution authorizing force and secured it on Oct. 10, 2002. That resolution explicitly restricted the use of force to compelling adherence with “relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions,” and continuing threats from Iraq. This was not a blanket declaration of war. The resolution’s contingent authority evaporates if its conditions are not met.

We now know that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and very little in the way of programs to develop them. That is why the weapons inspectors, quite rightly, were not going to report a material breach—the inspectors could find no evidence of weapons. Iraq was in compliance with the Gulf War resolutions and had not invaded anyone—hence no threat to international peace and security. Washington’s assertion otherwise remained crucial to cover an aggressive war with a fig leaf of legality. That fig leaf has now disappeared.

Posted above in this thread

[Milo_Bloom]

82. Spin... Read... the... text.

That isn't what the document said, and you know it.

Why are you lying about it now?

[ProSense]

85. That is a article by

John Prados is a senior fellow with the National Security Archive in Washington, DC.
link

You need to calm down. Leahy voted against the IWR, you refuse to acknowledge any of the facts.

[Milo_Bloom]

88. The facts are stated in the text you refuse to quote!

Instead you just want to try and come up with after the fact stories, and claims which ignore the actual text.

Cute, but doesn't play in the real world... maybe with stupid people, but hopefully people are DU are far smarter than you give them credit for!

[ProSense]

91. In the real world,

people realize that this is Bush's war. I haven't seen the term Congress' war or Democrats' war coined to refer to Iraq. Have you?

[Milo_Bloom]

95. Yes, many times.

By anyone who has taken the time to read the IWR, instead of listening to crazy spin.

[SOS]

39. Bush complied in full

He cut and pasted Section 3 a 1 and 2 (verbatim) and delivered it to Congress exactly two days before he launched the attack.
He complied with the letter of the law.

[illinoisprogressive]

27. it gave Bush pretty much unlimited power and to do what he wanted to do

[zulchzulu]

32. Boiled down, it was a vote to authorize the war for Bush and everyone knew it

I've defended Kerry over his vote and he has admitted it was a mistake to TRUST Bush at his word. It was a dark time when the vote came about. Some were more for the war than others. Others said just about everything to cover their ass later. Some even saw the real intelligence while serving in the Senate Intelligence Committee and then became co-sponsors of the resolution.

Deep down, we all knew what Bush was up to. Political theater and the fear of a 30-second political ad with dark synth music and Ashton Smith doing jingositic voiceover won the day over doing the right thing and coming out against the war at an unpopular time to do so.

[ProSense]

40. It was always a mistake to trust Bush.

The fact is this was a deterrence that did not deter because Bush would have started the war anyway. I've said it before, a Republican Congress a few month later would have given him a blanket resolution.

Speaking of common sense: two Senators who voted against the IWR also voted to give Bush his FISA bill, Sens. Inouye and Mikulski.

From the time Levin started with his "well we're there" routine, that should have been a clue that the IWR vote was not the determining factor in launching and continuing the war. Otherwise, more than 13 Senators would have voted for withdrawal last year.



Edited for clarity.

[GreenArrow]

37. going along to get along, for the most part

After all, what's a few hundred thousand deaths and counting to protect our "interests" in the region? And if conscience pricks, it's easy to dehumanize them. Plus, who wants to look weak on National security?

[laugle]

41. You are correct.....but nobody knew how demented Bush was then! nt

[killbotfactory]

59. They should have.

He wasn't exactly hiding his desire to attack Iraq.

[venable]

51. It was a vote for a process

and this process, intended to give diplomats and inspectors some real teeth, was aborted by bush.

it is bush's war.

[slipslidingaway]

56. A look back to statements made by Edwards

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=250935

Remarks By Sen. John Edwards to the Center for Stategic and International Studies


"This week, the U.S. Senate will have an historic debate on the most difficult decision a country ever makes: whether to send American soldiers into harm's way to defend our nation. The President will address these issues in his speech tonight.

My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I am a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution we're currently considering.

Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies -- including our vital ally, Israel. For more than 20 years, Saddam has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every possible means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he has used them in the past, and that he is doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability. We must not allow him to get nuclear weapons."


http://web.archive.org/web/20021214041757/edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html

IRAQI DICTATOR MUST GO
(Senate - September 12, 2002)

"The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event – or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse – to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

[Egnever]

80. In a lot of cases something else

For a lot of Dem's it was a vote to get themselves re-elected against their better judgment. Political calculation at its ugliest.

[FrenchieCat]

84. What? Are we still debating

the Iraq "WAR" Resolution and whether it was a vote that gave Bush the power to go to "WAR"? Geeze! What time is it? :crazy:

Hell, so many have said "sorry" for voting for "WAR", I don't understand why this is even up for debate!

"It was a mistake to vote for this "WAR" in 2002." - John Edwards-November 13, 2005

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html

[ProSense]

86. This isn't a discussion about

covering one's political ass. It's about the facts of the IWR. Thanks for input.

[Hippo_Tron]

93. Under a reasonable President it would be for something else, under Bush it was a vote for war

Democrats should've pushed for Biden-Lugar and the Levin Amendment.

[ProSense]

94. Bush would have violated any of them, and

Levin, once the war started his position changed to "well we're there now." It's why he too so long to decide to support a binding resolution to end the war.

[Hippo_Tron]

97. Maybe, but they would have legitimate grounds to say that he violated them

Since those resolutions would've actually required him to come back to congress and get another vote to actually use force. Had they passed that resolution and Bush had gone in without coming back to congress, I'd say that they have good grounds to say that they did not give him the authority to go to war and he did so anyway. But since the IWR didn't require Bush to come back to get authorization, they don't have an excuse.

[ProSense]

98. Yes they do.

Manipulated evidence is one. Feingold just issued a resolution to censure Bush for a number of activities including the Iraq war.

You might not think they do, but Senator Kerry and others have repeatedly stated that Bush violated the resolution.

[Milo_Bloom]

99. Guess they didn't read what they voted for. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

100. Ted Kennedy was hammering them on their evidence and getting somewhere...

But Daschle insisted that it be voted on before they went into recess for the election and so he ran out of time. And even if the evidence was solid, that's not a reason to give a bunch of warmongers unilateral authority to go to war. They should have passed Biden-Lugar and the Levin Amendment so that Bush would have had to build an actual coalition and get UN approval. Once he had done those things he could come back to Congress and ask for the authority to go to war.

Instead, they just signed over the authority to go to war and said "Alright we trust you to build a coalition and get UN approval".

[ProSense]

101. He still had to come back to Congress, and

present them with the a report. It;s a mis-characterization to say that once Bush had the IWR he could launch a war with Iraq. He had to report to Congress that the criteria outlined was met. He lied.

[Hippo_Tron]

102. But the key is that no second vote was required, meaning he could just lie in the report

[Milo_Bloom]

103. Wrong.

He didn't have to make any such report, just a determination.

"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.

His determination is a personal opinion and does not have to be supported by specific facts. Nothing in this resolution requires specific facts be presented.

[calteacherguy]

104. W is for war. They should have understood that (get the double entendre?) nt