The Iraq War Resolution of 2002

[Yollam]

The Iraq War Resolution of 2002 - your take on it.

[Loge23]

1. Big factor for 2008 for me

I will not vote for anyone who supported this bill.
Similarly for the so-called Patriot Act.
I'll vote for freakin' Pat Paulson if I have to.

[Yollam]

4. I'm slightly more lenient on the unPatriot act.

It was passed so soon after 9-11 that the country had yet to overcome its hysteria in reaction to the attacks. A number of dems (& even repugs) have changed their position on the Patriot act, so I could support someone who voted yes, but now supports non-renewal or repeal.

But I would not vote for an active supporter of Patriot or Patriot 2.

[Selatius]

2. I guess John Kerry deserves to rot in prison for enabling the...

war that killed 100,000+ civilians, almost 2,400 US servicepeople, and roughly 20,000 wounded with about half permanently crippled for life? Is that what you are saying? I just want to make sure.

What was it he said? "How do you tell a man to be the last man to die for a mistake"?

[mike_c]

5. he deserves an opportunity to answer to war crimes charges, IMO....

Due process, innocent until proven guilty, and all that. Maybe he and his colleagues can plead insanity....

[Yollam]

6. Yes, how could a man who said something so profound...

...vote for something so obviously evil? It's something that perplexes me about Kerry to this very day.


How do you figure he enabled the Vietnam war? He was in no position to change policy at that time. He did have a say on Iraq, though. And for some inexplicable reason, he said "yes."

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[cali]

back at you.

That is so lame. Kerry has served this country well in many ways for a hell of a long time. Your inflammatory post is totally uncalled for.

[Yollam]

20. I'm not crazy about Kerry, but I thought it was a bit over the top, too.

That being said, I do honestly believe that in a perfect world, a just world, every Congresscritter who voted yes on IWR would be in the same prison as Bush & Co.

Unfortunately, we live in Bushmerica, Shitworld, and that ain't gonna happen.

[cali]

40. I think the notion that those who voted for

the IWR deserve to be imprisoned is way over the top. That said, I've had a hard time letting go of my anger at dems who voted for it, and I'm proud of my Senators, Leahy and Jeffords who both voted agianst it. I'm particulary proud of Leahy, who gave the best speech against the inevitable war of any of the Senators. (yes, better than Byrd's)

[Selatius]

50. You Vermonters know how to pick your senators

I can't say the same for my state of Mississippi, though. I hope Bernie Sanders picks up Jefford's seat when he retires. The nation could use another person who fights for the working class in the halls of power.

[Yollam]

53. It's my sincere wish, but at the same time, I know it's fantasy.

In the real world, criminals run free all the time. But if politicians really were held responsible for their crimes, or for aiding and abetting crimes, as in the case of the IWR, I think we'd have much better leadership.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[WildEyedLiberal]

29. Stupid, stupid, stupid

There's just no cure for stupid, sad to say.

[iamahaingttta]

35. Which stupid...

...are you referring to?

[mike_c]

3. it was a war crime, plain and simple-- we cannot legally authorize...

...a war of aggression, post-Nuremburg. They should thank their lucky stars that I'm not king of the world, because if I were everyone who voted in favor of the IWR would face charges in The Hague. I'm like that about crimes against humanity.

[WildEyedLiberal]

7. I'm sorry to interrupt the circle-jerk, but...

... you left "irrelevant" off your poll. :eyes:

[Clarkie1]

13. Most of us don't believe it was irrelevant.

Look, I respect Kerry.

I even signed his petition because I think each and every thing that puts more pressure on the administration to change course somehow is a good thing. He made a great speech on dissent recently. It is equally as powerful as what I have heard Clark say on the value and importance of dissent. However, that vote is a deal-breaker for me. It wasn't just any other vote. In my view, it separated those senators I can enthusiastically support in 08' from those I cannot, eventhough no senator would be my first choice.

[Mass]

16. I know Clark said he would probably have voted for the IWR if he had

been in their position and I know he certainly did not support the war.

So, while I know that you support Clark and he is a good guy in my book, I am not sure I understand your position.

[Clarkie1]

28. I have been through this again and and again and again and again...

There was actually a thread on it this week about Ted Kennedy saying how Clark influenced him to vote against the IWR.

Clark has stated he would never have voted for that resolution, because it gave the president a blank check. He suggested in testimony a resolution of intent to use force if there was an imminent threat and all else failed, but the President would have to go to congress to get the authorization. Look it up, it's all out there. I don't want to go through the time to endlessly point this out again and argue with some who only believe what they have already decided is true. Some want to believe that Clark was for this in spite of all evidence to the contrary, and will never change their mind.

I have a big problem with senators who relinquish their constitutional authority to the executive branch because "they trusted them." It's not about trust, it's about doing their job and being responsible. Some senators (in my view) chose to take on that responsibility. Others, for whatever reason did not. I cannot forget that, and I cannot dismiss it as "irrelevant." It is very relevant, in my opinion. Kennedy, Boxer, Feingold, Byrd and others were of the 23 who voted NO. As for the others...I cannot, ever, be enthusiastic about them seeking higher office (of course Feingold is the only one realistically who will be seeking higher office, but that's not my point).

[Yollam]

34. I was leery of Clark at first, too.

I was bothered by his on-air commentary on cable news during the invasion that seemed to condone, or at least not criticize the invasion.

However, I was very impressed by the way he comported himself during and after the campaign and would enthusiastically support a second run.

[Clarkie1]

41. A lot of people then confused praise for the way the troops completed

the military mission of ousting Saddam with support for the policy. Clark never supported the policy. He did praise the troops who did the job they were asked to do. He was at the same time expressing real concerns with what would happen next, after the fall of Baghdad.

He was right.

[WildEyedLiberal]

21. Good thing for you Clark wasn't in the Senate then. n/t

[Clarkie1]

32. I'm not going to go through this nonsense again. n/t

[Maddy McCall]

44. I supported Clark in 2004, and I agree with you.

:hi:

[Clarkie1]

55. Clark would never have voted for that resolution.

He said he never would have, and his statements support that conclusion...as well as the fact that Ted Kennedy cited Clark as a key influence in him voting against the IWR.

[Maddy McCall]

68. I like Clark. Will support him in 08.

Don't know if you were here during the primary wars---I was.

Here's the thing: in hindsight, it's always easy to say what we WOULD have done. Our senators and congresspeople have records the show exactly what they did. Clark doesn't have that record, either to prove that he did or did not support the IWR.

I refuse to cut off my nose to spite my face by condemning the representatives who voted for it. Many, many of them realize that it was a mistake...a mistake grounded in Bush's lies. When their records demonstrate progressive attitudes on most every other issue, I'll not condemn them for a mistake on one--a mistake that was based on lies and the witholding of evidence to which they should have been privy.

I still love Clark. But the record isn't there to show how he voted--it's easy to say how he WOULD have voted, but that's not a legislative record.

[WildEyedLiberal]

66. I like Clark a lot

I know he was against the war - but so was Kerry. Endless IWR rehashments don't do anyone any good, IMO - I think it's safe to say that no Democrat, except Joementum, actually wanted this war.

[Maddy McCall]

69. Those who only want to rehash the IWR....

will be very disappointed in 2008. They'll either be so preoccupied with the past that they refuse to celebrate the future, or they'll be at Free Republic crying.

[Yollam]

14. Irrelevant?

Maybe to you....




Not to him.



Not to him.



Not to them, or their parents.

NOT. IRRELEVANT.

[WildEyedLiberal]

24. Yes, irrelevant.

Heartrending tragic pictures aside, Bush is to blame for 100% of the tragedy of the Iraq War. To suggest otherwise is a lie.

[Clarkie1]

37. Wildeyed, I agree with you Bush is 100% to blame.

And I'm glad I can clarify that if I ever suggested otherwise.

For me, that's not the problem I have with the IWR. I was the relinquishing of the constitutional authority of the congress and putting a kind of "blind trust" in the executive branch. In my opinion, those who voted NO were stronger senators because they took on the responsibility of standing up the the executive branch. If the resolution had required the president to return to congress for actual authorization farther down the line, there could have been a REAL DEBATE on the issue. This is what Clark suggested, but that was not the weak resolution most senators voted for.

[Yollam]

42. Yes, and the War Powers Act was just as unconscionable as IWR.

The Congress have abdicated their responsibility and authority over war powers for decades. It's disgraceful.

[Clarkie1]

52. I agree. n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

67. That's definitely a valid criticism to make

You make a very valid point. Much more valid, IMO, than those who suggest that those who voted for IWR actually wanted to invade and bomb Iraq and are war criminals or whatever other ridiculous hyperbole some here come up with.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

31. You post Truth

This is hard for some to digest. On both sides of the aisle.

[Yollam]

8. Where are the folks who were FOR the IWR?

There are so many people eager to defend dems who voted for the IWR. Are you telling me not ONE of them actually supported the IWR at the time? Isn't it funny that there are these people defending a vote that they didn't even agree with?

[Mass]

10. I was not for it, but it is so stupid to be stuck on one issue and one

vote.

I will judge on a full record and decide who I will support or not this way.

[Yollam]

15. As another poster has said...

...this was not just "any other vote".

A no vote on minimum wage increase or a yes vote on a new bomber we don't need I could live with. This was different. This was life and death, in a very immediate sense.

[Mass]

19. It is not any other votes, but there has been other votes that were

very important in my book. So, as I said, I will look at the complete record, and it includes the IWR and other votes. It is relevant to me, but not the only thing to consider.

[Clarkie1]

9. Certainly anyone who voted for it does not deserve the 08' nomination.

However, I will defend Democrats who voted for it from attacks by Republicans. In the end, it was BushCo. who deceived everyone, but that is no excuse for the congress to reliquish it's rights under the constitution.

So, at this point Feingold is the only senator likely to run I could possibly support for President in 08'. He's not my first choice, but he has enough integrity to be on my short list.

[Roland99]

12. Other: I was for the war before I was against.But, I've been able to ADMIT

that I was WRONG to have been in support of it before.

My survival does not depend upon my pride or my self.

[Yollam]

18. Congratulations on the change of heart.

I was against the IWR from the very beginning. I supported the Afghan Invasion with some misgivings, though.

The media was in Orwellian overdrive at the time. It's not surprising they were able to sell a few dems on this bill of goods. But politicians are SUPPOSED to keep better informed on these matters than the rest of us...

[Roland99]

22. I made the complete switch in fall 2003

* turned me into a liberal!

[WildEyedLiberal]

27. Evidently you don't allow elected officials to have a change of heart

Or else you'd quit harping on the IWR and recognize that many of them - Kerry and Edwards included - have said that their vote was wrong and that Bush misused the authority.

[Yollam]

I applaud Kerry on his change of heart.

I just wish he had announced it before the '04 election, rather than after.

[Yollam]

30. DUPE - DELETE

nt

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

17. The IWR 2002, after all the whereasses

"...Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 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

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to 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.

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 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 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of 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 Wap Xnwers 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.
..."

http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html


In this poll, I chose "I was against it, but I defend Democrats who voted for it."

[Yollam]

23. May I add...

...that most of the "whereas's", were 100% fabrications?

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

25. Yes you may AFAIAC.

[ProSense]

33. Well Feingold will be disappointed

The third group wants nothing to do with his censure cosponsor, and the fourth group wants him imprisoned.

[Mass]

36. Harkin?

[ProSense]

38. Yes! n/t

[Yollam]

39. "deserving imprisonment" vs. "want them in prison"

In a perfect world, those who voted for the IWR, knowing that it was a fraud, deserve prison.

Unfortunately, a lot of these guys are the only people we have a choice to have fight for us, so we're stuck with them. And it could be argued that some really believed that Iraq was a threat. But it's sad that a congressperson could be that inattentive or that naive.

Like the ones who said "well, we expected Bush to go to the UN again." HELLO! This is George Bush we're talking about, not a rational human being with a freaking conscience!

[Clarkie1]

48. I don't understand your post.

These are the senators who voted NO on the IWR:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

[Yollam]

51. He's talking about censure cosponsor Harkin, who voted yes.

But every name you posted deserves kudos for doing the right thing.

[Maddy McCall]

43. I'm amazed that this hasn't been locked!

After all, it's turned into a flame war, and isn't that the standard by which threads are locked? Oh, and it's the continuation of another earlier discussion on a previously locked thread.


:eyes:

[incapsulated]

45. I can get it locked...

K.E.R.R.Y.

Easy Peasy.

[Maddy McCall]

47. Amazing, isn't it?

:shrug:

[incapsulated]

49. You just have to know the magic word.

You can, however, call people trolls at will, I have learned. Or maybe some people can.

[Yollam]

56. If you think it would be constructive, you may do so.

I don't think this thread has become a flamefest at all, considering the nature of the question. But I did post it with the knowledge that it might well get locked. And I actually respect the argument that the question is divisive. It is divisive. Unfortunately some people chose to vote for a very divisive resolution.

[incapsulated]

59. We were being...

Sarcastic, Yollam. :)

[Yollam]

61. I kinda thought so...

...but picking up on subtlety isn't my forte.

:)

[Crunchy Frog]

60. You can even call them freeper trolls from what I've seen.

:shrug:

[WildEyedLiberal]

70. Only threads in support of Democrats get locked here.

:eyes:

[welshTerrier2]

46. the issue NOW is to stop the war ... period

it was horrible that any Democrat voted for the IWR ... i will forgive those who stand with us now to immediately end the insanity of the war ...

those still seeking "success" in Iraq who further empower bush with their subsequent votes can go to hell ...

[cynatnite]

54. I don't have an issue with them voting for it...

my issue was that they voted too quickly for it. I do think they believed what this administration was telling them and it also seemed like they were cowered into silence for the most part.

Was there even a real debate?

[Selatius]

57. My issue with the IWR is a moral question

Is there ever such thing as a "just war" where one strikes first without provocation? My family's homeland was bombed during the Vietnam War. They say that war was a just war, a war against communism. It didn't really seem to make a damn difference to the dead we buried.

[Clarkie1]

62. That is the core of my problem with it as well.

They were too quick, far to quick to grant the president the blank check. A resolution of intent that put pressure on Iraq but required the president the return to congress for the actual authorization (assuming the threat became imminent and all else failed) would have done what needed to be done.

They relinquished their own constitutional authority and responsibility. Ironically, in a way, they were washing their hands clean of the matter by implicity putting all trust in the president that he, and only he, would be the decider of if diplomacy had truly failed, the inspections had no chance of working, and if the threat was truly imminent. After all, isn't that the safest choice politically, not knowing what the future might bring?

Did the question become for some, do I do what is best for America, or what is safest for my political career and aspirations? In my opinion, sadly, tragically, and very disappointingly...yes.

That's why this is a deciding vote for me.

There was no debate, really. Only a fear of looking weak post-9/11. It must have been an exceptionally strong fear for those from "swing states" or with an eye on the office of Commander in Chief. The bravest and strongest ones didn't let the politics of fear dictate their vote. They understood that the only thing they had to fear was fear itself, and they did what was right for America.

Some of my favorite senators fall in that category, including Kennedy, Feingold, Boxer, and "Mr. Constitution" Byrd.

[Yollam]

64. NT

NT

[Clarkie1]

65. self-delete.

[Zorra]

58. Congressfolks should have known better than to trust Bu*h, and that's

the bottom line.

Even my dog knew the little shithead was lying, for petes sake.

[magellan]

63. Other

I was against it, and I still have a problem with any member of congress who voted for it AND doesn't admit they were misled.

By the way, it wasn't the first criminal act of the war. BushCo lying about the evidence and bombing the hell out of Iraq in 2002 to soften it up for invasion were the first crimes.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. Voted For The "Blue" One.

I know many here feel passionately that all of congress should've known better and sought deeper for truth, and they probably should have, but given the times and the deception I have no problem forgiving the dems that voted for it whatsoever except for the ones that now have everything at their disposal and still would proclaim they'd vote for it. Any that have since come forward, however, and admitted voting for the IWR was in retrospect not the right thing to do, have my respect and forgiveness.