If you were a Democratic Senator in '02, how would you have voted on this?

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.

And if so, what did he use as an excuse???

The full text (no joke) is here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

March 19, 2003

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: (Dear Mr. President:)

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

WHAT A FUCKING LOAD OF CRAP THAT LETTER IS.

The real crime is that he violated B.

and weapons inspectors were reporting for two months that no WMDs were being found and diplomatic efforts were close to getting Saddam to leave Iraq peacefully to transition power.

BECAUSE the IWR was working, Bush rushed to STOP any effort to fulfill its guidelines.

Blame the IWR and you let Bush off the hook for violating it, and you play into the MEDIA COVERUP of his violations by turning the debate against the very document that was working to PREVENT WAR.

He just reprinted fucking clause (b) as his excuse.

And undoubtedly full of shit.

I never bought the WMD angle, so if I had been a Senator in '02 I would have voted no. There was no "continuing threat posted by Iraq". I still do not understand why so many voted for this. Were they not paying attention??

I would have fought Bush once he opted to use war instead of diplomacy. I am okay with the dems voting for this. I am not okay with them going along with the mission. The mission was wrong, and will take decades to complete, if ever.

Commander in Chief and protecting America. This is a redundant vote. (so I would have voted present or aye)

Very nice OP, Burtworm.

The media has people so spun they neglect the real story.

IWR was WORKING - Weapons inspections were reporting no WMDs were being found and diplomatic efforts were close to getting Saddam to concede to a PEACEFUL transition of power.

Because the IWR was working according to measure, Bush had to VIOLATE it and shut its efforts down prematurely.

Blaming the IWR actually lets Bush off the hook for violating it.

:toast:

We tend to forget that, but there was no other purpose for it. There was only one reason why that vote was held in October rather than after the first week of November. It was to benefit Republicans in Congress and harm Democrats. It did the job, especially when Dems played along with it.

use of military force on March 15, 2003?

It was not a peacekeeping document. It was a political weapon the GOP concocted to take out a whole bunch of Democrats.

One month before IWR was passed.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.un.letter/

And would you change your vote now, knowing this, if you could?

and ALL resolutions of force have guidelines to be met.

The IWR was WORKING.

Blame the resolution that was WORKING instead of Bush who was in violation of the resolution is no answer and plays only INTO the hands of those who plotted the political aspect of it.

Again, it was not called the Iraq Peace Resolution, or the Authorization to Inspect Iraq Resolution. The people who introduced it knew exactly what they were doing, and it wasn't to frisk Saddam and then let him go.

it.

Pure logic requires you stick to the facts. That's where many Democrats fail and let the media play them. And if the media os playing you that means BushInc's plan for controlling perception has worked.

And if so, why?

Afghanistan But, I would never be allowed to run a country.

And being a pacifist, I also believe in measures to PREVENT war, so I can understand why a lawmaker who also believes in those measures would vote for the Resolution.

What I don't understand is why more people cannot make that distinction. You already LET Bush off the hook when you all bit at the hook of IWR = war. I think people weren't using the IWR to HOLD Bush accountable, and many in Congress did the same and gave up to the media perception.

I do recall Dem lawmakers saying Bush didn't HAVE to go to war because the guidelines for weapons inspections and diplomacy were working, but, media refused to allow that very real debate to be part of the public discourse.

He and his minions are responsible for the gross error that is the Iraq war, and it's my fondest hope that they'll be made to pay for it.

I can't bring myself to make any excuses for the Dems who voted for IWR, though. If they didn't know it was designed to skewer them, they're unforgivably naive. I'd rather they come clean and say truthfully that the onyl reason they voted for it was to not give Rove the satisfaction of giving him a nay vote. But that's not very flattering either.

I wouldn't mean it any other way to my fellow DUers.

as well.

(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.

--------
Congress gave Bush the right to decide when Iraq was in breach of IWR, and then attack with no further congressional action. They didn't say his judgement needed to be rational.

per the weapons inspections and the diplomatic efforts.

The IWR made him the "determiner"

They didn't make him say why he determined there was a threat, however per his determination there was one, and that's enough for the IWR.

There's a lot of self-delusion going on here.

with the media spin that IWR was FOR war and had no guidelines for Bush to violate - letting Bush off the hook for his CRIME of office.

from presenting OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS to Congress that contain false statements - it's an impeachable offense.

It is illegal for Bush to submit a false statement to the Congress in an official document. The document - a letter to Congress, as per the IWR - should have compelled a president to stick to the truth because he is obliged by law to do so under the threat of removal.

because a) I have super-duper 20/20 hindsight, and b) I am a magic Senator who never has to consider the downside of a decision!

Seriously, if you're risk-averse, which most Senators are, it's a lot easier to justify voting Yes in error than voting No in error. Which is why they voted for the damn thing. Which is why our militaristic society is doomed to keep doing dumb shit like this.

All the political talk for the month prior was about how Rove was going to make the Dems show the electorate whether they were pro-national security or pro-terrorist. They knew it was a Rove trick, and they went along anyway.

just facing facts. There was a politically risky road (opposing the war) and a less risky road (going along) and less risky is the way risk-averse (fancy word for "wussified") Senators did what they usually do.

Which is a totally fucked up way to run a country, but that's our country in duh New Merkin Century.

Told his staff then it was all a lie. Said I'd never vote for Kerry if he voted yes.
THose who watch BBC or read the Guaradian knew it a lie. Or even if you listened to the words of Hans Blix. Enough for me.Poor Colin Powell had to lie in public.

:shrug:

Was not Hans Blix the director. Blix told Bush to wait because UN inspectors doubted mwd's existence? Earlier, former US Marine Scott Rider was a part of the UN Inspectors. Riter has turned out to be right on many an issue. Proof enough for me. Did it not happen. That Blix was in Iraq a year or two before. And left because of Clinton's bombing of the no fly zone. But, recent enough that RIter doubted WMD's along with BLix.?

Of course UN inspectors were in Iraq dismantling his WMD throughout the 90s. I thought this was common knowledge and people would know what I was refering to.

Sorry for the confusion.
:shrug:

he had attacked Clinton after 1998 for not taking the threat seriously enough. At that time he insisted there were weapons of mass destruction. There were no inspections between 1998 and the fall of 2002 - after the UN demanded it and after the IWR. So, Ritter changed his story between 1998-2000 and 2002 - in spite of having no new information.

Blix left Iraq in 1998 (4 years before - not a year or two) when Clinton ordered him out before bombing. (By the way, It was NOT the no fly zone bombed )

So, at the time of the vote, there were no inspectors for 4 years. Kerry, of all people, KNEW WMD could have been smuggled in. (As it was the Khan network did sell them or technology to make them to Iran, North Korea and Libya) Kerry in Nov 2005, spoke of even speaking to British contacts he had via his foreign policy contacts. They were lying too.

From his floor speech, Kerry accepted the pssibility that they COULD have WMD and wanted the international community to insure that he was not a threat.

The IWR was WORKING to prevent war and the weapons inspectors and the diplomatic efforts were succeeding.

Because the IWR was proving war to be unnecessary, Bush had to STOP following it and VIOLATED it when he lied to start his war.

to see real FACTS brought into the equation.

The US Senate should have acted accordingly. Anyone should give Blix more credibility than Bush! A rush to war should always be checked.

consistent with those efforts since 1998 when the hearings were held to determine how much we knew about their existence. Even Scott Ritter then believed Saddam still had them and testified passionately about the danger.

The point is that they WANTED the inspections there for over 4 years and yet some people want to claim their vote for IWR was just political expedience.

It was Bush who refused to hear the real intel being provided by the inspectors for two months.

Both Blix and Riter were skeptical about the need for war. They were the field people.

status of WMDs - they DID That for two months as per the IWR that was WORKING at the time to prevent war - it was Bush who had to STOP it from working, LIE about what was happening, and VIOLATED the resolution to start his war.

Yet people are still SPUN into believeing the IWR is responsible for TAKING THIS COUNTRY TO WAR.

Senator Richard Durbin along with Senator Feingold and several others didn't go for the scam.

I now have serious issues with those who "voted for before they voted against"...especially since there were some Senators who didn't do the politically expedient thing and took the risk, at the time, and took a close look at what was being stovepiped through the Senate and called the bullshit for what it was.

I seem to recall that Senator Graham, being on the committee, was devastated by intelligence that he saw, but, due to "classified" nature, was unable to relay that info to Senators not on the committee. Such as the "classified" portion of the NIE.

Anyone who blames the Senators for voting for this resolution and saying they voted for the war, imo, don't have all their facts straight.

ALL Senators do NOT get to see all intelligence.

The "classified" version of the NIE contained doubts about the intelligence that Bush was using to justify the war. Sadly, only select Senators were allowed to see it, and they were sworn to secrecy.

So we should live in a secret society? The boooosh regime was waiving visions of Iraq having the ability to drop nukes based on what, at that time, some were already calling faulty and manufactured intel...and we were supposed to go on blind faith from a regime that even at that time had shown that it was hellbent on goin to war for profit.

There was ZERO proof of any of this regimes claims at that time...just "trust me" and the hysteria of the Post 9/11 rush to find someone/anyone to start bombing.

Still to this day we still hear the word "misled"...bullshit, this was outright lying and a lot of those yes votes were based on political expediency...more fearful as to how this vote would affect their careers than doing what the Senate was designed to do...deliberate. Remember, this vote was purposely scheduled in front of the 2002 elections and it could have waited...but instead it was rushed through and there was a lot of CYA going on. The calls by some to delay the vote until after the election was bummed rushed and now there are 2500 dead soldiers and thousands who have been maimed.

Scott Ritter was very vocal at that time...a man who had been inside Iraq and knew the extent of the Iraqi program. He was slimed and dismissed. There was NO threat to the U.S. homeland. Even if Iraq had WMD, how were they going to get it here? Fed Ex it?

background, and I know how important it is to have all the amunition of persuasion when you enter negotiations with anyone. If YOU aren't the decision maker, your negotiation demands fall flat on the table. Infortunately, I didn't think ANY American President would pull the premptive attack crap like Shrub did!

The difference between the folks in DC, and my position is, NOW I owuld be screaming..."You liked, and tricked me! I trusted you, and all you did was grab the authority we gave you and ignored all the cautions!" Why noone will say if they knew then what they know now, they'd vote differently is beyond my imagination!

let alone September 2002, would be able to think there was any reason to trust Bush on Iraq. I really don't get that.

PS: Nothing against you! Really! It's the Senate Dems I don't get.

But, neither did they trust Saddam on inspections, since he had previously kicked out inspectors, violating other resolutions, I think 14 of them, hence a need for a stronger resolution.

But, I don't believe they expected Bush to kick out the inspectors. I didn't trust Bush, but, I also didn't believe he would blatantly violate the resolution in the manner that he did, prematurely kicking out the inspectors.

But, at that time I had not read the PNAC papers. That may have given me second thoughts, but, I still would have expected Bush to let the inspections play out.

were driving toward war in Iraq. Anyone who missed their determination to have the war wasn't paying attention.

One of them being one of my senators (Cantwell). Who is now trying to cover her bloodstained tracks by co-sponsering Kerry's Not Quite anti-war bill.

Those who "voted for before they voted against" still owe those of us who were against from the git-go a better explanation that what we got. There was precious little testimony from those who had knoweldge of the Iraqi weapons program like Scott Riter. The issue here wasn't if Iraq had weapons, but that they had the systems to deliver these weapons and had the capability of striking the U.S. The only missiles Iraq had were some leftover skuds that barely made it the 500 miles to Israel, let alone the 3500 miles it would have taken to hit the East Coast.

and luckily some Democrats saw through it.

...because there wasn't any threat from Iraq. 12+ years of sanctions made damn sure of that.

one way or the other. They'd have found another way. But for the record, no, I wouldn't have voted for it.

I knew from the beginning what would happen if we went to war in Iraq. And sadly, it has turned out even worse than I feared. :(

tactic worked.

The media manipulation was perfect - So many Dems really believe the IWR is to blame for the war, and have no clue that it could have prevented war in the hands of any other president.

Perpetuating the debate over a RESOLUTION keeps Dems annoyed and aggravated and refusing to hear lawmakers when they propose very real plans - and that has been PRICELESS for BushInc - simply priceless.

So - why would those who are aware of the manipulation, who are aware of the TRUTH that the IWR was just a vehicle to divide the Dem party and not the compelling force towards war, and who claim to not be swayed by media spin continue to perpetuate a dead end debate that continues to hurt the Democratic party?

If the IWR was a tactic to divide the party, why did so many democrats cross the line and make the unconscionable choice of voting for it?

Yes, we on the anti-war left knew that the war was pretty much a fait accompli even before the IWR. Which made it all the more important that ALL DEMOCRATS and whatever decent republicans are left VOTE NO on the resolution, and reject transparent lies flat-out. If we had managed to stop the war, the tens of thousands of lives that would have been saved would have been worth it - yes, even if Saddam stayed in power. And if the war happened anyway, the democrats would have been on record as having opposed it and would not be in the compromised position they find themselves in now.

It's never wrong to do the right thing.

BushInc.

Nothing else matters, because that's the only way to STOP IT ALL. Any of you would rather beat the crap out of an IWR vote than work to get Democratic lawmakers to open the books on the Bush crime family.

In fact, you'd work your butts off to make sure a cover up Democrat gets elected as long as he voted no against the IWR - or said he would have.

And my note to Burt was because he acknowledges the political manipulation, and knows that Bush would have gone in WITHOUT the IWR and that the IWR was merely a political tool to divide Dems who were EASILY manipulated into accepting the spin that the IWR drove Bush to war.

for anything other than Rove/Bush's agenda? Seriously? Do you believe it would have been introduced if Gore had been president and the Dems controlled the House? Or even if the Dems totally owned the Senate, rather than precariously held it? Or if the midterms weren't a month away?

IWR was intimately connected with the Bush push to have war in Iraq and to keep Republicans firmyl in control of the national agenda. Can you seriously deny that?

that no resolution would have stopped a war Bush was willing to lie about and would go to any length to VIOLATE any guideline written.

And THAT IS THE GREATER POINT. People who BLAME the IWR as if it took us to war are misguided. Because the document itself is not a bad resolution and would have prevented war had it been administered honestly. By taking the focus off Bush who VIOLATED the IWR, the focus for almost FOUR YEARS has been on the IWR and those DEMOCRATS who voted for it - and ONLY the Democrats.

So, when people here at DU continue pushing the IWR - completely out of proportion to its role in the war, itself, WHO does it really benefit? The same people who planned the political nature of it in the first place.

and not pretend that there was the slightest hope it could have prevented war. That makes them look like naive dupes AT BEST.

bottom line - in my opinion, they could have even trusted Reagan with that IWR - or a Lugar, or a Hagel. It was THIS president, and his fascist crew who would have taken ANY version of a resolution and batardized it.

How dumb are WE at DU and all over the country for placing a DISPROPORTIONATE amount of blame on the resolution, itself? For FOUR YEARS?

in Iraq. I blame it for getting the noses dirty of some otherwise clean-nosed Dems.

The main point that you seem to keep glossing over, blm, is that IWR had no other purpose than doing just that. It was designed to appear to give Bush permission to carry on with Iraq as he wished. Practically everyone of us understood this before the vote. I will bet that DU and the progressive, anti-war left was nearly unanimous in being disappointed with every Dem who cast a yea vote for it because it was painfully obvious was IWR was about. This is why four years later you have people still angry over it, and why you have Dems having to explain themselves over it. Although, funny enough, you never, ever hear people who voted NO having to explain THEMselves, do you?

shouldn't be attaching as much importance on it as we do and have been doing for almost four years - it's DISPROPORTIONATE.

BTW - I did hear Dean during the Iowa debate STUMBLE awkwardly and try to change the subject when Gephardt pointed out that Dean was FOR a version of the IWR - BidenLugar - that was not substantively different and STILL would have taken us to war.

And before the Nov 2004 election there was no way to predict that after THREE ELECTIONS in Iraq there would still be no functioning government - no candidate, not even an antiwar candidate would have said we have to leave because the Iraqis are INCAPABLE of forming a government through the election process.

And they ignored us. Even Hillary Clinton, in a city and state where a "no" vote would have posed ZERO political risk to her. What a disgusting betrayal.

And how disgusting that people here still defend those votes and try to rationalize them away with nonsense about what the resolution required of the president.

You may be fooling yourselves, but you'll never fool the rest of us, any more than Dumbya and Powell's preposterous tales of mobile chemical labs, centrifuges and balsa wood airplanes carrying h-bombs fooled us.

:mad: