Iraq is Bush's war of choice -- the IWR signing statement

[ProSense]

Statement on Signing the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
October 16th, 2002

Snip...

The debate over this resolution in the Congress was in the finest traditions of American democracy. There is no social or political force greater than a free people united in a common and compelling objective. It is for that reason that I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64386

Thanks to FedupinBushcountry for posting this in another thread!

[The Magistrate]

1. You Are Quite Correct, Ma'am

The hyperbolic criticism of Democrating Senators in this matter is quite misguided, both as a matter of fact, and as a question of political strategy.

The intention to invade Iraq was a fixed item for the Republican administration. No result of the vote in the Senate could have prevented it. Had the resolution been voted down, it would simply have been re-presented in the new Senate, and that body would have contained even less Democrats than it did had their been an earlier rejection. Even if, by some wild fluke, the new Senate had rejected the thing again, the invasion would still have taken place, and on exactly the schedule it did.

The people of the country show a good deal more sense in this matter than some committed ideologues. The people of the country hold the Republican administration wholly responsible for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and seem today inclined to vist their displeasure with the result on Republicans in general at the polls this fall. There is nothing whatever to be gained by cries "Democrats are responsible, too!" They represent nothing but an attelpt to muddy an issue that the people have not only a pretty clear view on, but a damned useful view for our purposes as leftists and progressives.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[ProSense]

2. Exactly! Thanks! n/t

[blm]

3. Worse, by wrongly focusing a disproportionate amount of attention on IWR

as a vote for war, the media and many on the left enabled Bush to hide behind that perception instead of subjecting him to greater scrutiny and account for VIOLATING the guidelines in the IWR that would have prevented war if administered by any other president.

[ginnyinWI]

4. yes--I wish more people realized this!

It's always, "he voted for the war!" or "she voted for the war!" as if they had an actual say in the matter. Nothing---nothing would have prevented * from having his war of choice. So he lied, distorted, spun, and accused in order to get his way. I don't blame the Senators who were told things by credible people, people they trusted, especially in the political climate this country was in back in 2002. Unless they have not yet repudiated their votes.

[blm]

5. This also proves that WH knew they were lying every time they said

Democrats voted for war. The media helped push that lie every step of the way.

[The Magistrate]

6. Of Course They Knew They Were Lying, Ma'am

And so should everyone else have known: after all, it was obvious their mouths were moving....

[blm]

8. I am still surprised so many on the left still haven't COMPREHENDED this

simplest of truths.

[fedupinBushcountry]

7. And oh

how that lie has sunk in both on the right and the left. So much easier to play the blame game.


I am so over the response "he/she voted for the war" BS they voted for diplomacy and doing the right thing, not rushing to war.

[FrenchieCat]

9. So you are saying that the vote didn't matter, and those who voted

"YES" were right all along anyways, and those who voted NAY were not any more correct.....and maybe were even voting against Diplomacy? Or are you saying that what our Senators do doesn't really matter. Or are you saying that when John Kerry says that he now regrets his vote, he doesn't really mean it, cause his vote was correct from the Git-Go?

I see it slightly differently. Had all Dems voted "NAY", the IWR (that Blank Check one that Lierberman wrote) would not have passed, and Bush would have had to find another way.
Would he have? I'm sure that he most likely would have.....however, it doesn't absolve our Senator's accountability as to their duties and responsibility to the American People...which, in this case, would have been to make it as difficult as possible (based on what each could do) for the President to wage war that wasn't warranted.

There were 21 Senators that Voted "NO". Explain to me how their vote didn't make them any wiser than those who voted "YES"?

Note that George Bush also said the following in that same link you provided....

"The debate over this resolution in the Congress was in the finest traditions of American democracy. There is no social or political force greater than a free people united in a common and compelling objective. It is for that reason that I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary."
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64386

This means that Senators who supported the Resolution were complicit in allowing George Bush an easier "Go" at Iraq. Had the Resolution failed to pass, George Bush would have had a much harder time in doing what he wanted done. The Senators' responsibility was to do just that; to make it difficult, not to make it easier....

[blm]

10. Bush HAD the votes for an IWR that gave him a REAL blank check - why do

you think he didn't? You think Zell Miller, Nelson, Clinton and Lieberman wouldn't have voted for everything Bush wanted?

It was up to OTHER Democrats to help craft a BETTER bill, and the best one they could get while dealing with that unpleasant fact.

I said at the time that Kerry should NOT have apologized for voting for the IWR because I saw it as giving up to the reality that the media won the spin and even the left was duped into believing the IWR was a vote for war, even though Kerry spent most of the campaign ACCURATELY stating that he voted for more diplomacy and weapons inspections. The left wouldn't listen to him, so why would the media bother with accuracy?

Just as Clark gave in to the media spin when he originally said his position was close to Kerry's, then he had to come out and say he misspoke after he was attacked by the left. He shouldn't have HAD to, even though I understand why he did. There was just no breaking through the media wall that stated as fact that the IWR was a vote for war.

Bush's signing statement here PROVES that they knew damn well it wasn't, just as Gonzalez was forced to say the same UNDER OATH.

Kerry held the exact same position about getting weapon inspectors into Iraq and stepping up diplomatic efforts for a peaceful transition that he held in 1998.

When Bush rushed to war DESPITE the reports from the weapon inspectors and the diplomatic corps that were saying military force was not needed, the war became HIS WAR - SOLELY.

[FrenchieCat]

11. As far as I'm concerned.....

They could have voted for the better bills, and voted no on this one.....as 21 did.

You say.....It was up to OTHER Democrats to help craft a BETTER bill, and the best one they could get while dealing with that unpleasant fact.

Lierberman was the author and sponsor of that specific IWR bill.....and as you state, Lieberman wanted everything that Bush wanted.

Bush's statement is nothing by bravado....and was said AFTER the bill passed...meaning, it's easy to talk shit once you have what you want. It is my opinion that Bush lies 100% of the time, so a statement from him doesn't prove a thing to me.

Sorry, but that is how I feel....and I realize and respect the fact that you see it differently.

[blm]

12. The signing statement was about LEGALITY - I suppose Gonzalez under oath

was bravado to you because that is the only way you can cling to the MISINTERPRETATION of the IWR as a vote for war when the facts prove it was not.

Lieberman was NOT the sole author of the IWR for Dems - Edwards, Gephardt, Biden, Kerry and others were part of the negotiating struggle that went on to take Iran and Syria off the table, something you also dismiss as if it was unimportant.

How you feel should have nothing to do with FACTS - FACTS do not change because of feelings.

Kerry and Clark both gave in to the media-dominated spin because the left gave them no choice but to deal with it POLITICALLY. Clark was no less respected by me after he retracted his earlier statement and said he misspoke, I understood clearly why it was necessary for him to do so.

[FrenchieCat]

13. Lieberman sponsored the resolution,

and when I look at the cosponsors, neither John Kerry nor Joe Biden are listed...although I do see Lieberman and Edwards listed.....

see....

S.J.RES.46 was sponsored by Joe Lieberman (D), with 16 cosponsors: Sen Allard, Wayne - 10/2/2002 Sen Baucus, Max - 10/7/2002 Sen Bayh, Evan - 10/2/2002 Sen Breaux, John B. - 10/9/2002 Sen Bunning, Jim - 10/4/2002 Sen Domenici, Pete V. - 10/2/2002 Sen Edwards, John - 10/3/2002 Sen Helms, Jesse - 10/2/2002 Sen Hutchinson, Tim - 10/2/2002 Sen Johnson, Tim - 10/7/2002 Sen Landrieu, Mary L. - 10/2/2002 Sen McCain, John - 10/2/2002 Sen McConnell, Mitch - 10/2/2002 Sen Miller, Zell - 10/2/2002 Sen Thurmond, Strom - 10/10/2002 Sen Warner, John - 10/2/2002
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Iraq_War_Resolution

In reference to what Clark said in saying he had "Bobbled" a question when he said that he would have voted for "a" resolution (See the Levin bill), his first day out as a politician to members of the press, and what Kerry did; voted for the IWR as an experienced senator and later stating that he regretted it ok for you to use and compare....but I don't equate the two...however.

[blm]

15. Sure, but there is still NEGOTIATING going on.

And I watched Clark enough over the years to know he said what he felt he HAD to say. I didn't see Clark as a new face like so many did. I was familiar with his thinking from long ago.

The point is that the WH, the media, the RNC and the left pushed this FALSE CLAIM that the IWR was a vote for war to the point that no truth could break through. Clark saw that from his perspective and adjusted after the first day of being part of the political scene - Kerry, to my dismay, gave in when he could no longer continue to try and explain something the media was not going to allow explained. I understood it, but don't LIKE IT.

[FrenchieCat]

22. This is what Clark felt he "had" to say....

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, you know, I went to several Senators, including I think a couple who later ran for office, and, for the Presidency. I said, "Don't believe him." (laughs) "He's made up his mind to go to war. Don't give him a blank check."

Al Franken: Mm Hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But they gave him a blank check. I said it on CNN, "You can't give him a blank check." And I said it in the testimony that you have to make sure that there's a resolution. It's got to be a broad resolution so we can go to the United Nations, but it doesn't and shouldn't be a blank check.
http://securingamerica.com/node/932
===============

September 16, 2002:
Clark said Congress shouldn't give a "blank check," to Use Force Against Iraq.

On September 16, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization to use force, "Don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation?"

WOODRUFF: How much difference does it make, the wording of these resolution or resolutions that Congress would pass in terms of what the president is able to do after?

CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do.

So I think the -- what people say is, don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.

And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent if we are able to put the specifics into the resolution.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/ip.00.html

Clark opposed the Bush Administration's ill-advised war in Iraq, often citing its inability to involve allies and properly plan for post-war reconstruction:

On August 2, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "We seem to have skipped some steps in the logic of the debate. And, as the American people are brought into this, they're asking these questions."

August 29, 2002--Clark said there is "War Fever Out There Right Now in Some Quarters of the Leadership Elements in this Country...Where is That Coming From?"

On August 29, 2002, Clark said regarding a proposed invasion of Iraq, "Well, taking it to the United Nations doesn't put America's foreign policy into the hands of the French. What you have to do as the United States is you have to get other nations to commit and come in with you, and so you've got to provide the evidence, and the convincing of the French and the French public, and the leadership elite. Look, there's a war fever out there right now in some quarters of some of the leadership elements in this country, apparently, because I keep hearing this sense of urgency and so forth. Where is that coming from? The vice president said that today he doesn't know when they're going to get nuclear weapons. They've been trying to get nuclear weapons for -- for 20 years.So if there's some smoking gun, if there's some really key piece of information that hasn't been shared publicly, maybe they can share it with the French."

On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, "I think -- but I think that underneath, what you're going to have is you're going to have more boiling in the street. You're going to have deeper anger and you're going to feed the recruitment efforts of Al Qaeda. And this is the key point, I think, that we're at here. The question is what's the greater threat? Three thousand dead in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon underscore the fact that the threat we're facing primarily is Al Qaeda. We have to work the Iraq problem around dealing with Al Qaeda. And the key thing about dealing with Al Qaeda is, we can't win that war alone."

On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "My perspective would be I'd like to see us slow down the rush to go after Saddam Hussein unless there's some clear convincing evidence that we haven't had shared with the public that he's right on the verge of getting nuclear weapons.

On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "Going after Iraq right now is at best a diversion, and at worst it risks the possibility of strengthening Al Qaeda and undercutting our coalition at a critical time. So at the strategic level, I think we have to keep our eye on the ball and focus on the number one strategic priority. There are a lot of other concerns as well, but that's the main one."

On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "It seems that way to me. It seems that this would supercharge the opinion, not necessarily of the elites in the Arab world, who may bow to the inevitability of the United States and its power, but the radical groups in the Middle East, who are looking for reasons and gaining more recruits every time the United States makes a unilateral move by force. They will gain strength from something like this. We can well end up in Iraq with thousands of military forces tied down, and a worse problem in coping with a war on terror here in the United States or Europe, or elsewhere around the world."

On September 23, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization for the use of force, "When you're talking about American men and women going and facing the risk we've been talking about this afternoon... you want to be sure that you're using force and expending American blood and lives in treasure as the ultimate last resort. Not because of a sense of impatience with the arcane ways of international institutions."
http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

On October 5, 2002, Clark said, regarding debate on Congressional authorization for war against Iraq, "The way the debate has emerged, it's appeared as though to the American people, at least to many that talk to me, as though the administration jumped to the conclusion that it wanted war first and then the diplomacy has followed."

On January 23, 2003, Clark said, regarding the case the United States had made for war against Iraq to the United Nations, "There are problems with the case that the U.S. is making, because the U.S. hasn't presented publicly the clear, overwhelming sense of urgency to galvanize the world community to immediate military action now."
http://www.clark04.com/faq/iraq.html

[ProSense]

23. He was referring to a previous resolution

Kerry cited that resolution, and clearly stated that the resolution was revised to specifically include the limitations:

I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq , and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq . It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change.

Page: S10174

[FrenchieCat]

27. I'm sorry, I dont' understand what you are really saying, AND

and this was the blank check resolution.....and John Kerry clearly says so.....right here...."The revised White House text, which we will vote on, Limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region.

Bush ONLY went to Iraq....which is all he wanted to do at the time.

[blm]

24. You could make a list like that for Kerry, too - the point is that WHEN

Clark first made the statement that he would have voted like Kerry, he HAD to say he misspoke the next day or else face the same gauntlet. I was all for Clark saying he misspoke, because if Kerry went down, I wanted at least another person who was pretty much as deep a thinker and knowledgeable about the reality of the globe to rise in his place.

I understand the politics of what he did, and so do you.

The same way you keep correcting those who take Clark's past words and positions out of context in their ignorance of his overall worldview, the same way I will keep correcting the false perception that the IWR and those who supported the resolution are to blame for war.

[sandnsea]

14. 1,000 times yes

The vote didn't fucking matter and I, personally, don't think John Kerry regrets the vote in its context AT THAT TIME. However, since too many on the left can't seem to grasp the concept of context, he does say IF HE KNEW THEN WHAT HE KNOWS NOW he wouldn't have "voted for the war". Well no fuckin' duh, WHO WOULD.

Some, like Byrd, voted against it on the simple basis that in their minds, it was UNCONSTIUTIONAL, not necessarily a vote against the threat of force to disarm Saddam. Others, like Graham, were worried that it didn't give broad enough of authority to deal with Syria, Lebanon and Iran. Still others, like Kennedy, just generally don't vote for war at all. You can't put that vote in a box, much as many insist on doing.

Finally, you want to talk about making things more difficult for Bush... what would have happened if the left had held HIM accountable for lying about his own plans for war despite saying the vote WAS NOT a vote for war -- instead of lashing out at Dems for it. It's amazing to me that so many people simply don't believe the LEFT PLAYS POLITICS TOO and played damned shitty politics on the IWR vote.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Ok....then

when you say....."Bush... what would have happened if the left had held HIM accountable for lying about his own plans for war despite saying the vote WAS NOT a vote for war -- instead of lashing out at Dems for it."

It isn't an either/or proposition as you would want to suggest (lashing out at Dems is a bit strong for my taste...but what-E-ver).

and
when you say....

"It's amazing to me that so many people simply don't believe the LEFT PLAYS POLITICS TOO and played damned shitty politics on the IWR vote." -- With this statement, I agree! I just don't appreciate how the game impacted Americans, that's all!

[FrenchieCat]

17. Self Delete.....

[ProSense]

18. The signing statement makes the exact opposite extremely obvious!

The signing statement makes it fairly obvious: the key part of the paragraph you cite "should force become necessary."

The portion in bold in the OP was an option that Bush had without the IWR. When limitations were put forward by the IWR, he simply issued a signing statement.

What exactly are you trying to prove: that Bush wouldn't have gone to war anyway?

[FrenchieCat]

19. No......

What I am saying is Why would senators base their votes on What George Bush would or would not do, one way or the other? Wouldn't it be better for senators to vote for what they thought was right, based on all they knew, including the true character of George Bush?

And how is posting Bush Nonsense proof of anything? The man lies at a rate of 100% anyways.....so using what he writes or says as "proof" is not irrefutable.

Bush wanted as many votes as he could get in order to bolster his position on Iraq.....and those who voted for what Bush asked for did what he wanted.

[ProSense]

20. You're assuming

they didn't vote based on the evidence when they all did. There were several other amendments attempting to hold Bush accountable and all the Senators voted for more than one version of the resolution:

Levin Amdt. No. 4862

Statement of Purpose: To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council, to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, long-range ballistic missiles, and related facilities, and for other purposes.


YEAs ---24
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)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Durbin Amdt. No. 4865

Statement of Purpose: To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.


YEAs ---30
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

[FrenchieCat]

21. I was paying close attention at the time that the IWR debate was going on

and I remember it all very vividly! ....Here's a time capsule bit of reading for you, circa October 2002!

http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102
10/09/02: Don't Let Congress Ratify Bush Preemption Doctrine

UPDATE: House of Representatives
The House of Representatives is in the midst of 17 hours of floor debate on the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution – H.J. Res. 114. That debate is expected to end sometime tomorrow. There will then be one hour of debate each on an amendment introduced by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) and an amendment introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).

The BUSH-GEPHARDT WAR RESOLUTION gives President Bush a blank check to skirt the Constitutional authority of Congress to declare war, and allows the President to act in violation of U.S. and International Law. IT CONSITUTES A CONGRESSIONAL ADOPTION OF THE BUSH PRE-EMPTION DOCTRINE. Urge your Representative to vote “No” on H.J. Res. 114.

The LEE AMENDMENT would urge the President to work “through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction..." through peaceful mechanism. It is important that we secure as many votes as possible for this amendment. Even Representatives who do not agree with our position should still vote for the Lee Amendment because it upholds the rule of law and supports the United Nations as the proper vehicle for securing a peaceful resolution to the Iraq crisis.

The SPRATT AMENDMENT will also reach the floor of the House and be debated tomorrow. This amendment to the Bush-Gephardt war resolution is the most important vote in the House against President Bush. Although it authorizes the use of United States armed forces, it does so ONLY pursuant to any UN Security Council resolution that provides for the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and ballistic missiles with ranges exceeding 150 kilometers, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. The Spratt amendment would mandate A SECOND VOTE IN CONGRESS, following the failure of the UN Security Council to adopt such as resolution, AND failure of the Council to sanction the use of force to compel Iraq's compliance.THIS SECOND VOTE IN CONGRESS WOULD BE REQUIRED BEFORE THE PRESIDENT COULD USE MILITARY FORCE.

The Spratt Amendment is being supported by an increasing number of House liberals and moderates alike who see it as the BEST CHANCE WE HAVE TO STOP BUSH. Therefore, any support for the Spratt amendment would be important. This amendment is certainly not perfect, but we need to secure as many votes as we can for Spratt to show the breadth of doubt and opposition to the peremptory approach of the president embodied in H.J.Res. 114.

A MOTION TO RECOMMIT -- At this writing it appears that those opposed to the Bush Resolution will have the opportunity to offer a Motion to Recommit. A “Yes” vote on the motion would send the President's resolution back to the committee of jurisdiction to ensure that Bush cannot go to war until he answers fundamental questions about long-term costs and consequences of an Iraq war to the U.S. economy and the stability of the Middle East. The point of this motion is to require the President to give Congress and the American people the answers they are demanding. (See previously distributed alert on “President Fails to Answer Basic Questions About Iraq War”).

Contact your Representatives and ask them to vote YES to the LEE and SPRATT AMENDMENTS and vote NO to the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution – H.J. Res. 114.

Click here to see summaries of the Lee and Spratt Amendments



UPDATE: SENATE
If Sen. Daschle and Senate Democratic leaders cannot come to an agreement on the rules for debate by the end of today, then a cloture vote is likely. Cloture is a method of limiting debate or ending a filibuster in the Senate which takes at least 60 Senators. If a cloture vote carries, then it will deny Senators like Sen. Robert Byrd from filibustering. Thirty hours of floor debate is expected in the Senate, making an actual vote likely on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

The BUSH-LIEBERMAN WAR RESOLUTION is the Senate version of the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution.

The BIDEN-LUGAR AMENDMENT would authorize the use of force only to disarm Saddam Hussein, not depose him.

The LEVIN AMENDMENT, introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), would curtail the broad powers provided by the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution by requiring the President to first secure a UN Security Council authorization of the use of force in Iraq. It would require a second vote in the Senate pending action or inaction by the UN Security Council.

Senators should be urged to vote for the only resolution that would mandate a 2nd vote be taken before the President can launch a war against Iraq.

Thus, implore your Senators to vote YES to the Levin Amendment and vote NO to the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution – S.J.Res.46.

Don’t give up! To resist is to win!
Send Free Faxes to Congress from True Majority

Unfortunately, It doesn't appear that John Kerry voted for the Levin Amemdment....the only one that most who were attempting to stop Bush (and yes, many knew the real George Bush) were asking for. The one that would have required a 2nd vote before military force was used. Why didn't John Kerry vote "for" that amendment?

[blm]

26. You can list any preferred wording of an amendment you want, including

the guidelines Gore suggested from his Sept speech, but Bush would have STILL invaded Iraq.

Hell, he still would have invaded if there was NO RESOLUTION agreed to by the senate because he HAD legal cover with the 1991 UN resolution, which they told Blair they were prepared to go in with if there was no IWR.

[FrenchieCat]

28. Again, my point is that the Democratic Senators didn't have to

make it easy for Bush...but they did.

Your point that Bush might have still done it, doesn't make those who voted "for" the Resolution more right because of it. They were the barrier that would have made it that much more difficult.....but instead, it became much more simple to invade once congress said...."OK"!

[blm]

29. It would be OK only after weapon inspections and stepped up diplomacy.

And they also got Syria and Iran taken off the table in exchange for that OK.

Let's pursue this YOUR way -
Keep the focus and the pressure on IWR and the idea that Dems are to blame for voting for it and keep pretending it took this country to war despite ALL the facts that prove otherwise, because this country doesn't need Bush held to account for violating the resolution and attacking Iraq. Your defense of him has been inspiring to many, I'm sure, and it IS a defense whether you realize it or not.

[GreenArrow]

31. it's not an either or proposition

Bush is the main repsonsible party, since he initiated it, but anyone of either party who went along with it, endorsed it, sold it, voted for it is culpable. If all of the Dems had voted against IWR, then they would be blameless now; as it is, some of them made political calculations which proved to be wrong, and they should be held liable. The war was purely elective and truly something monstrous beyond reckoning.

[GreenArrow]

30. an easier way of putting it:

"A Rubber stamp."

[blm]

25. I would say they did not vote based on what George W Bush said -

I am quite certain that many of the senators most familiar with the last two decades of foreign policy believed that Bush1, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell all had greater influence on Bush2 administration than they did, and in Oct2002, there was no clue that Bush would push aside their views, too.

Sure, we can all say alot about Bush lies and whatever, but back in Oct 2002, how many were saying that Bush2 is acting on his own and completely AGAINST the advice of his father, Baker, Scowcroft and Powell? Most blogs believed Bush2 would attack Iraq FOR his father.