HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » In aid of memory: Roll Ca...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 09:12 PM

In aid of memory: Roll Call of the 2002 Senate vote on the IWR.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm
Senate Roll Call: Iraq Resolution
Friday, October 11, 2002

Following is an alphabetical listing by state of how each senator voted on President Bush's Iraq resolution. A "yes" vote was a vote to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq unilaterally. A "no" vote was a vote to defeat the measure. Voting "yes" were 29 Democrats and 48 Republicans. Voting "no" were 1 Republican, 21 Democrats, and 1 Independent.

Alabama Jeff Sessions (R): Yes - - - - - - - - - Richard Shelby (R): Yes
Alaska Frank Murkowski (R): Yes - - - - - - - - Ted Stevens (R): Yes
Arizona Jon Kyl (R): Yes - - - - - - - - - - - - - -John McCain (R): Yes
Arkansas Tim Hutchinson (R): Yes - - - - - - - -Blanche Lincoln (D): Yes
California Barbara Boxer (D): No - - - - - - - - Dianne Feinstein (D): Yes
Colorado Wayne Allard (R): Yes - - - - - - - - - Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R): Yes
Connecticut Christopher Dodd (D): Yes - - - - -Joseph Lieberman (D): Yes
Delaware Joseph Biden (D): Yes - - - - - - - - -Thomas Carper (D): Yes
Florida Bob Graham (D): No - - - - - - - - - - - -Bill Nelson (D): Yes
Georgia Max Cleland (D): Yes - - - - - - - - - - -Zell Miller (D): Yes
Hawaii Daniel Akaka (D): No - - - - - - - - - - - Daniel Inouye (D): No
Idaho Larry Craig (R): Yes - - - - - - - - - - - - -Mike Crapo (R): Yes
Illinois Richard Durbin (D): No - - - - - - - - - - Peter Fitzgerald (R): Yes
Indiana Evan Bayh (D): Yes - - - - - - - - - - - -Richard Lugar (R): Yes
Iowa Charles Grassley (R): Yes - - - - - - - - - -Tom Harkin (D): Yes
Kansas Sam Brownback (R): Yes - - - - - - - - -Pat Roberts (R): Yes
Kentucky Jim Bunning (R): Yes - - - - - - - - - -Mitch McConnell (R): Yes
Louisiana John Breaux (D): Yes - - - - - - - - - Mary Landrieu (D): Yes
Maine Susan Collins (R): Yes - - - - - - - - - - -Olympia Snowe (R): Yes
Maryland Barbara Mikulski (D): No - - - - - - - Paul Sarbanes (D): No
Massachusetts Edward Kennedy (D): No - - - -John Kerry (D): Yes
Michigan Debbie Stabenow (D): No - - - - - - -Carl Levin (D): No
Minnesota Mark Dayton (D): No - - - - - - - - -Paul Wellstone (D): No
Mississippi Thad Cochran (R): Yes - - - - - - - Trent Lott (R): Yes
Missouri Jean Carnahan (D): Yes - - - - - - - - Christopher (Kit) Bond (R): Yes
Montana Max Baucus (D): Yes - - - - - - - - - -Conrad Burns (R): Yes
Nebraska Chuck Hagel (R): Yes - - - - - - - - - Ben Nelson (D): Yes
Nevada John Ensign (R): Yes - - - - - - - - - - -Harry Reid (D): Yes
New Hampshire Judd Gregg (R): Yes - - - - - -Bob Smith (R): Yes
New Jersey Jon Corzine (D): No - - - - - - - - -Robert Torricelli (D): Yes
New Mexico Jeff Bingaman (D): No - - - - - - -Pete Domenici (R): Yes
New York Hillary Clinton (D): Yes - - - - - - - -Charles Schumer (D): Yes
North Carolina John Edwards (D): Yes - - - - -Jesse Helms (R): Yes
North Dakota Kent Conrad (D): No - - - - - - -Byron Dorgan (D): Yes
Ohio Mike DeWine (R): Yes - - - - - - - - - - - George Voinovich (R): Yes
Oklahoma James Inhofe (R): Yes - - - - - - - -Don Nickles (R): Yes
Oregon Gordon Smith (R): Yes - - - - - - - - - Ron Wyden (D): No
Pennsylvania Rick Santorum (R): Yes - - - - - Arlen Specter (R): Yes
Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee (R): No - - - - - -Jack Reed (D): No
South Carolina Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D): Yes - - - - - Strom Thurmond (R): Yes
South Dakota Thomas Daschle (D): Yes - - - -Tim Johnson (D): Yes
Tennessee Bill Frist (R): Yes - - - - - - - - - - -Fred Thompson (R): Yes
Texas Phil Gramm (R): Yes - - - - - - - - - - - -Kay Bailey Hutchison (R): Yes
Utah Robert Bennett (R): Yes - - - - - - - - - - Orrin Hatch (R): Yes
Vermont James Jeffords (I): No - - - - - - - - -Patrick Leahy (D): No
Virginia George Allen (R): Yes - - - - - - - - - -John Warner (R): Yes
Washington Maria Cantwell (D): Yes - - - - - -Patty Murray (D): No
West Virginia Robert Byrd (D): No - - - - - - - Jay Rockefeller (D): Yes
Wisconsin Russell Feingold (D): No - - - - - - -Herb Kohl (D): Yes
Wyoming Mike Enzi (R): Yes - - - - - - - - - - -Craig Thomas (R): Yes

2002 The Washington Post Company

59 replies, 1413 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 59 replies Author Time Post
Reply In aid of memory: Roll Call of the 2002 Senate vote on the IWR. (Original post)
scarletwoman Jun 14 OP
yeoman6987 Jun 14 #1
JI7 Jun 14 #3
yeoman6987 Jun 14 #5
JI7 Jun 14 #8
Loudly Jun 14 #11
fujiyama Jun 14 #16
billhicks76 Jun 14 #20
JackRiddler Jun 15 #29
mattclearing Jun 15 #50
joshcryer Jun 15 #36
JackRiddler Jun 15 #51
scarletwoman Jun 15 #52
joshcryer Jun 15 #54
Enthusiast Jun 15 #56
joshcryer Jun 15 #53
JEB Jun 14 #2
scarletwoman Jun 14 #7
hobbit709 Jun 14 #4
Jeff Rosenzweig Jun 14 #6
scarletwoman Jun 14 #9
CaliforniaPeggy Jun 14 #15
DesertFlower Jun 15 #34
Autumn Jun 15 #55
catbyte Jun 14 #10
scarletwoman Jun 14 #12
dflprincess Jun 14 #21
scarletwoman Jun 14 #22
dflprincess Jun 15 #59
fujiyama Jun 14 #18
NRaleighLiberal Jun 14 #13
flvegan Jun 14 #14
catbyte Jun 14 #17
valerief Jun 14 #25
catbyte Jun 15 #32
valerief Jun 15 #44
sabrina 1 Jun 15 #45
quinnox Jun 14 #19
scarletwoman Jun 14 #23
George II Jun 14 #24
scarletwoman Jun 14 #26
George II Jun 15 #40
scarletwoman Jun 15 #41
George II Jun 15 #42
elleng Jun 14 #27
George II Jun 15 #30
elleng Jun 15 #31
Luminous Animal Jun 15 #37
sabrina 1 Jun 15 #46
George II Jun 15 #48
sabrina 1 Jun 15 #49
Enthusiast Jun 15 #57
Skittles Jun 14 #28
DesertFlower Jun 15 #33
scarletwoman Jun 15 #35
pansypoo53219 Jun 15 #38
cali Jun 15 #39
sabrina 1 Jun 15 #47
malaise Jun 15 #43
Zorra Jun 15 #58

Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 09:27 PM

1. Amazing how many Democratic candidates have left

The only one that "paid for" his vote is Russ Feingold. He was just ahead of history but it didn't work out for him. If only he had his election a few years later, he probably would have survived.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 09:50 PM

3. Feingold's loss had nothing to do with his vote(which was a no)

you think people in 2010 voted against Feingold because he voted against the IWR ? that makes no sense at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 09:52 PM

5. I could not remember when Feingold was sent packing....I thought it was more 2006.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 09:57 PM

8. no, his loss was in 2010

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 10:18 PM

11. It was the same Wisconsin swing to the right which saved Scott Walker's ass.

And it's Paul Ryan's and Jim Sensenbrenner's worst nightmare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 11:10 PM

16. Russ Feingold won reelection to the Senate in '04 by ~10 points

He lost in the wave election of 2010. I don't think his vote against the Iraq War really had much to do with his defeat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 11:16 PM

20. Stunningly Disgusting

Time to send the DINOs packing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 12:07 AM

29. Feingold won re-election.

Wellstone is the one who likely paid for his vote, along with his family and the pilots of the plane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #29)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 11:27 AM

50. I wasn't going to say it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 01:50 AM

36. Feingold lost because the "left" threw moderates under the bus.

And he went with them. As did Grayson. But Grayson is a 1%er and was able to buy back his seat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #36)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 01:16 PM

51. Apologies for the billionaires, I see.

Feingold lost because the media played the Tea Party wave for all it was worth, and because millions in soft-money flooded his state thanks to Citizens United and the Kochs. But I see you have a myth prepared to obscure the powerful and blame some fictional little "left." Once again, "moderates" in Stockholm syndrome. (Kind of like the bigger narrative of denial by party-line Democrats, in which they ignore the 2000 electoral coup d'etat by the most powerful faction in politics and shift the blame instead to the powerless Nader.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #51)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 01:35 PM

52. Thanks. I get so sick of that false narrative being parroted ad infinitum.

The "left" LOVED Feingold. The left got out and voted. It was the mushy middle voters who don't pay attention who didn't bother voting in 2010.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Reply #52)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 02:15 PM

54. Of course we voted, we didn't *get out the vote.*

I shouldn't say we, because I helped keep Colorado blue... I wasn't resentful toward the democrats, I fought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Reply #52)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 08:07 PM

56. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #51)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 02:13 PM

53. GOTV was 9 points below 2006.

The previous non presidential election year.

That falls squarely on the activists. Period.

The Tea Party is an excuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 09:47 PM

2. Thanks for posting.

Here in Oregon, we got rid of poopstain Gordon Smith with the most excellent Jeff Merkley. Still shocking to see how many D's voted yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JEB (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 09:57 PM

7. "Still shocking to see how many D's voted yes." Yup, 29 of 'em. I think it's shameful.

Anyway, I figured having the whole list to bookmark might come in handy as the shit in Iraq gets deeper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 09:52 PM

4. And I STILL have no use for the D's that voted Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 09:55 PM

6. This is the kind of informative post I used to love this place for

far more than the transient laughs I used to gather up for the DUzy Awards.

Thank you, sw. As long as folks like you still post here, all is not quite lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff Rosenzweig (Reply #6)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 10:05 PM

9. That's very kind of you.

I hang on, although I don't post much.

I'm delighted to see you again!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff Rosenzweig (Reply #6)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 10:46 PM

15. So glad to see you here, Jeff.

I hope you'll stick around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff Rosenzweig (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 01:30 AM

34. well said jeff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff Rosenzweig (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 04:43 PM

55. Welcome back. you gonna do the Duzys again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 10:13 PM

10. As a Michigander, one of my proudest moments

Stabenow: No
Levin: No

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catbyte (Reply #10)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 10:21 PM

12. I'm with you. My two Minnesota senators also voted NO.

I miss Paul Wellstone terribly, but at least we have Dayton as our Governor.

Bravo to all Dems who voted NO!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Reply #12)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 11:24 PM

21. And Wellstone was being told a "No" vote would kill his reelection chances

but still he did what he knew was right...And he went up in the polls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #21)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 11:28 PM

22. I still can't quite come to grips with losing him in that plane crash.

Such an awful, cruel turn of fate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Reply #22)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 09:30 PM

59. I'm there with you

and I still wonder if it was fate or something else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catbyte (Reply #10)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 11:12 PM

18. Yes, this was a good reminder

of the fact that our state's two senators did show foresight in voting the way they did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 10:40 PM

13. a remarkable list in so many ways.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 10:45 PM

14. Joseph Biden (D): Yes; John Kerry (D): Yes; Hillary Clinton (D): Yes

What a fine mess, indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flvegan (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 11:11 PM

17. That is so disappointing. Even *I* knew that it would be a

clusterfuck of epic proportions. Why didn't they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catbyte (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 11:47 PM

25. They DID know. How could they not? They also knew $$$$$$ was in it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #25)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 01:09 AM

32. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that Biden, Clinton & Kerry are that evil.

That is was all about money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catbyte (Reply #32)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 10:46 AM

44. Either for money or to not get dead. It's usually one or the other. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #44)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 10:51 AM

45. Wellstone voted 'no'.

And while it took a while to get rid of some of the 'no' votes, several of them eventually either left or no longer part of Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flvegan (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 11:14 PM

19. Just waiting for the inevitable - "But damn it, they didn't know!" response

 

"So it's not their fault!"

Whenever I see that here, I know we are dealing with a lock step kool-aid drinker...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flvegan (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 11:31 PM

23. They based their vote on political calculus, as opposed to doing what was right.

As Bvar says, "You will know them by their actions."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 11:33 PM

24. It would be informative if you posted the text of the bill on which they were voting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to scarletwoman (Reply #26)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 10:09 AM

40. Here are a few VERY important excerpts from the document for which they voted:

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.

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.


The fact is that bush LIED to Congress and the United Nations in order to proceed with his unwarranted invasion of Iraq. At the time of the invasion, Iraq DID comply with the Security Council resolutions, most importantly they destroyed their Weapons of Mass Destruction. If bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Wolfowitz hadn't blatantly lied to Congress and the United Nations, under this act bush could NOT have "gone to war". It wasn't a vote for bush's war, it was a document that specifically stated under what conditions he could go to war. Unfortunately those conditions didn't exist and the war was essentially illegal, even with this legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #40)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 10:22 AM

41. Well, somehow 22 Senators managed to see through the lies and voted 'no'.

So what's the excuse for the 29 Dems who voted 'yes'? Plausible gullibility?

Everyone knew damn well that Bush was going to get his war on, a bunch of fancy CYA language notwithstanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Reply #41)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 10:29 AM

42. Most of the lies started AFTER the AUMF was passed.

Even so, based on the wording of the AUMF, a "YES" vote wasn't a vote for bush's war. It was essentially a vote for war IF Iraq didn't comply with the Security Council resolutions, but they did comply, which we learned weeks after the invasion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #24)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 11:50 PM

27. President Bush's Iraq resolution.

A "yes" vote was a vote to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq unilaterally. A "no" vote was a vote to defeat the measure

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #27)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 12:07 AM

30. That's a subjective paraphrase, that's NOT what they were voting for/against.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #30)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 12:10 AM

31. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107evLJOD::

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 02:06 AM

37. Here you go...

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm





<DOC>



]

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

]

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - >>

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 Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 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'';

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 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 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 United States 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 (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);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress 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 Resolution 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 of 1998 (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 interests 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 <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

]

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.

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.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> Reports.--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 the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

]

(b) Single Consolidated Report.--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 the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (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 such resolution.

Approved October 16, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-721 (Comm. on International Relations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.
Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement.

<all>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 10:53 AM

46. Don't you know the text by now? I remember, we almost knew it by heart at the time. And

begged at least Democrats, not to give that kind of power to the war mongers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #46)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 11:22 AM

48. I'm very familiar with the wording, but unfortunately the majority of people who discuss....

....the AUMF, whether they like it or not, don't know what it actually said or authorized, OR the conditions under which bush was "authorized" to invade Iraq.

And sadly, even after it was passed, bush LIED about the state of affairs so he could use the "conditions" in the AUMF to justify his war.

The bottom line is that those who voted to pass the AUMF, both Democrats and republicans, did NOT "vote for war".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #48)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 11:26 AM

49. Bush lied BEFORE the AUMF which is why people knew, well WE knew, that to give a liar and war

monger that kind of power was the equivalent of a vote for war. And ANYONE who didn't know that, is not fit to be in a position where they could make such a horrendous, costly decision again.

The wording was a cover to give to those who wanted to vote for it, and has never been an acceptable excuse because contrary to what they think, the people are not THAT stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #49)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 08:10 PM

57. +1 an entire shit load.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 11:50 PM

28. I will add my absolute disgust for ANYONE who voted for Duyba

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 01:28 AM

33. if hilllary runs it might come back to

bite her in the ass again especially if this thing escalates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DesertFlower (Reply #33)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 01:44 AM

35. The mess WILL escalate, guaranteed.

Whether her 2002 vote does any substantial harm to her political prospects remains to be seen. The DC power structure is remarkably forgiving of boneheaded votes when it comes to U.S. imperialism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 05:32 AM

38. the vote was MADE POLITICAL. it was right before an election and not long after 9/11 + war hoopla.

it SHOULD have been take AFTER the election. THAT WAS DIRTY POO! just like bush was. the democrats were CORNERED INTO THJAT VOTE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pansypoo53219 (Reply #38)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 05:39 AM

39. cornered? Oh no they weren't. They all had a choice. It may have been a hard choice, but

they all had one. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pansypoo53219 (Reply #38)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 10:55 AM

47. It didn't hurt Feingold or many of the others, Sen. Byrd eg. to do what was right. So how was

doing the right thing going to hurt a Democrat? They weren't looking for Republican votes were they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 10:35 AM

43. Down memory lane with Robert Byrd


Part 1


Part 2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Original post)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 08:12 PM

58. K&R nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread