The Psycho-In-Chief DID NOT have any LEGAL right to invade Iraq. He's a WAR CRIMINAL:

[in_cog_ni_to]

We have always argued here on DU that this IWR was NEVER meant to give the psycho-in-chief the right to illegally invade Iraq. He was suppose to let the inspectors do their job and they WERE until HE kicked them out.

Video to remind those who wish to change history. The weapons inspectors were doing their job and Bush kicked them OUT so he could ILLEGALLY INVADE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvDe7Z-ykDo

WASHINGTON, D.C. (1/14) After the White House confirmed Wednesday that the Iraq Survey Group headed by Charles Duelfer had halted any further search for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in Iraq, some are calling for answers. This week, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D - California) said, “Now that the search is finished, President Bush needs to explain to the American people why he was so wrong, for so long, about the reasons for war."

With a new focus on the reasons for the Iraq war, some are questioning whether the war was legal. Under U.S. law, it was not.


The authority under which Bush purportedly acted to go to war in Iraq arose under “House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq, October 10, 2002” (the Iraq Resolution). However, the ostensible "statutory authority" granted to the President to was conditional.


In fact, Congress specifically made that authority, if any, of the President to go to war with Iraq subject to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (War Powers Act or WPA). The Iraq resolution was definite. “Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.” The Iraq Resolution only granted the President the right to determine whether the standards required by War Powers Act Congress were met.



In other words, the Iraq Resolution was not an authorization to go to war, it was a mandate to follow the standards for war set forth in the War Powers Act. Congress made clear that in 2002, as in 1973, the War Powers Act was, and now is, the law of the land concerning war. Based upon the plain language of the Iraq Resolution, Bush was required by law to meet the conditions of the WPA before going to war with Iraq. He did not.<snip>

<snip>
Was the Wars Powers Act, incorporated in the Iraq Resolution, violated? There was no evidence or finding of an "imminent" threat to the U.S by Iraq, no "national emergency," no hostilities "with or within" Iraq, nor was there any declaration of war with Iraq. The law is specific and requires "clear" evidence of at least one of the foregoing grounds before U.S. troops can be sent to war.<snip>

http://www.themoderntribune.net/iraq_war_violating_the_war_powers_act.htm

What does the War Powers Act actually SAY?:

The War Powers Act of 1973
Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973
Joint Resolution
Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. <snip>

http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm

The War Poers Act was passed because Congress DID NOT WANT ANOTHER VIET NAM.

Even the WARMONGER, Richard Perle, who encouraged the war, ADMITTED the war is ILLEGAL and Bush had NO RIGHT to invade Iraq. The IWR DID NOT give him permission to invade Iraq and International Law certainly doesn't.

Richard Perle:

"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing ... international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone." - Richard Perle

http://www.notinourname.net/war/perle-20nov03.htm


October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45

As Delivered

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[dkf]

1. "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"

Nuff said.

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. READ THE POST. n/t

[WinkyDink]

32. Since when can Congress give permission to break a U.S. law?

[1corona4u]

3. These people don't care about facts....

they prefer to place ALL of the blame on Hillary....such bullshit. Especially when there were 76 other people who voted for it as well.
And, as I have said a milion times, Bush was going in, with or without congress. Ask Paul O'Neill;

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

It's just one more thing they can slam her with.

[dkf]

4. "it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President"

She vote to put the Iraq war in the hands of George W. Bush. She acknowledges it right there.

She wants him to use those powers wisely and as a last resort, but who in their right mind thought George Bush had the personality to do so?

So it does come down to the fact that she was naive and had no understanding of George W. Bush. Which goes back to a lack of judgment.

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. She made the mistake of TRUSTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! This war lays at HIS feet

not Hillary's.

[ingac70]

7. Bush's Administration was full of the cretins...

That sent this letter to her husband..

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

There is no way Hillary can feign ignorance and claim she had no idea he would take that authorization as far as he did!

[maddiejoan]

9. Here's the irony

Those that wish to call Bush a War Criminal (as I do) are letting him off the hook and essentially agreeing with Rove when they argue that IWR was a vote to go to War with Iraq.

If one says Hillary (and those that voted on IWR) are to blame for the Iraq War, then they are essentially letting Bush off the hook.

[ingac70]

11. All involved in the IWR...

those that voted for it, and the President for signing on to and acting on it, are war criminals.

[maddiejoan]

13. Maybe one day

you'll actually read the IWR.

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. Here's the Iraq War resolution..no exuse NOT to read it now:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

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 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" (Public Law 105-235);

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 resolutions 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 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 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;

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 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 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, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) 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 Resolutions 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 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 (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 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,

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.

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. Funny...many longtome DUers who were for JOHN KERRY DEFENDED the IWR back in 2004.

Now, since they support Barack, it's a different story. It's all bullshit...period.

[ingac70]

16. I never defended Kerry for that vote..

As a matter of fact, on election day 2004, I skipped over voting for President entirely.

I will not vote for war criminals.

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. Many longtime DUers that supported John Kerry KNEW the IWR was NOT a Declaration of War

and they defended his vote.

I wasn't a Kerry supporter either. I was against this illegal invasion from day one and still am, but I am not going to let Obama supporters continue twisting the FACTS.

[MoonRiver]

19. The two-faced hypocrisy is mind-bobbling.

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. That's exactly right.

Now they think Bush did the right thing. Apparently........ If they want to blame all of this on Hillary.


John Kerry also voted for the IWR and I didn't see DUers calling HIM a WAR CRIMINAL. The whole thing is bullshit.

[dkf]

20. Yes she made the mistake of trusting Bush. ergo she has bad judgment.

Just my point.

I wasn't that stupid, thank you.

[in_cog_ni_to]

21. And you also weren't in the Senate.

Easy to throw stone, isn't it? Did you call Kerry a War Criminal when he ran in 2004?

[dkf]

22. I barely got myself to vote for Kerry and this was the reason.

And if I was in the Senate I would have voted NO, like a majority of our Democratic congresspeople.

Frankly, if I were a Senator (lol) I wouldn't be elected to a second term because I would vote exactly my conscience on everything.

[GreenArrow]

23. If a private citizen knew (and millions did)

a Senator should know (and they did).

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. Right. Easy for you to say. Did you vote for John Kerry in 2004?

He voted for the IWR.

[GreenArrow]

27. Of course, it's easy for me to say.

It was clear and palpable bullshit from the moment of inception, and there was no valid rationale -- not a single one! -- for pursuing an invasion of Iraq. Not one, that is, unless one's willing to accept the principle of might makes right, i.e., the stronger taking from the weaker, as a valid principle. One might take it as a vote of support for US imperialism and hegemony. Or a vote in favor of IWR could be explained as a product of stupidity or naivete, itself a disqualifier for the office of President, particularly when the lies were so blatant, or yet again, an aye vote might be viewed as nothing more than the expression of personal political ambition, again a disqualifier, and one more odious and noxious than mere stupidity. I don't really believe that any of Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd are stupid. (I have never singled Clinton out for her vote; certainly, she never went as far in support as Edwards did). At any rate, to reiterate, there was no need for the USA to go into Iraq. None.

And until the nation understands and is willing to admit this, it will continue electing leaders that exhibit the same sort of insane, amoral thinking as that which has brought us to this dilemma. Delusion colors all, and shows no sign of being dispelled.

[in_cog_ni_to]

28. And the IWR DID NOT give the psycho the right to invade Iraq!

Did you even read the OP? He ILLEGALLY invaded! That means, CONGRESS DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE WAR!

[GreenArrow]

29. I disagree

But let's work with your assumption for the moment. If Bush acted improperly, then why hasn't he been held accountable? As Senator Byrd said, IWR was a "blank check" and Congress handed it to him on a silver platter.

[in_cog_ni_to]

30. Did you read the War Powers Act I posted above? The IWR stated he follow the WPA. He didn't do that

He's a war criminal. Why hasn't he been held accountable? Are you kidding me? The repukes were in power until 2006! The Democrats now don't want to lose the freakin' election,so if he pays for what he's done, it will be AFTER the election...IF we have a President that encourages an investigation and OBAMA has already said HE WILL NOT DO THAT.

The IWR and the War Powers Act are posted above if you wish to read them

[GreenArrow]

31. I've read 'em

I'm simply not swayed by the interpretation. "Presidential determination" is all that matters, and Bush knows it and Congress knows it. When you have Dick Perle coming out after the fact and admitting the truth of what nearly everyone in both the legislative and executive branches knew at the time, namely, that the war was illegal, it kind of gives the lie to any buck passing attempts at ass covering like invoking the war powers act to excuse what was clearly and obviously unecessary. An aye vote was either direct or tacit approval, and if everything had gone according to script, everything would have been hunky dory.

The problem is not that the Repukes are in power; it's that both parties have been complicit in facilitating the fiasco in Iraq. The Democrats have done nothing, and will do nothing after the election. You can't keep that powder too dry, I guess. It's all moot anyway, since if Americans actually gave a shit, they wouldn't tolerate either party, or at least the Democrats, running anyone who voted in favor of that POS.

[tritsofme]

6. The executive branch has maintained that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional since Nixon's

veto was overridden.

The IWR like all other war resolutions since the WPA is written to say that is "consistent" with the Act and not "pursuant"

The courts have not yet weighed in, and with its current composition I would be scared if they did.

So basing an argument on some shaky constitutional ground probably isn't the strongest argument.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. I read that last night. Why are you spamming the board with it?

How do you know she wasn't working behind the scenes to help stop the cement factory? Do you know for a FACT she wasn't?

[Lucinda]

17. K&R

[ErnestoG]

25. You are correct. And Hillary helped him.

[in_cog_ni_to]

26. And so did John Kerry. Did you vote in 2004? Did you vote for Kerry or Bush? n/t