Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Authorization for the use of Military Force Against Iraq 2002 (aka the IWR)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 04:24 PM
Original message
Authorization for the use of Military Force Against Iraq 2002 (aka the IWR)
Edited on Sun Feb-17-08 04:38 PM by SOS
Over the past five and a half years there has been much discussion about the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq.
Yet rarely is the actual law is posted or analysed. Below is the text of the AuMF, along with some commentary. The goal is to show that Robert Byrd was absolutely correct when he called this bill a “blank check”. There were no conditions. No calls for weapons inspectors, no demands on Bush whatsoever. It was indeed a blank check which authorized George W. Bush 100% sole determination to use military force in Iraq. There are no requirements, no strings attached and no binding demands for any further attempts at peaceful resolution. All amendments to attach conditions were defeated.

“Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq 2002”

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

There are no conditions presented in Section 2. None. Congress only “support(ed) the efforts” of Bush to realize sections (a) and (b). What exactly were those “efforts”? The efforts did not exist. Section 2 is empty, meaningless rhetoric crafted by the White House lawyers to create the appearance of conditions. When read carefully it is clear that there were absolutely no conditions. No mention of a last resort, weapons inspectors or any legally binding demand. There were no conditions!

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.

As “HE DETERMINES” to be necessary. Very simple. Very clear. Bush is given 100% sole authority to use military force as he (and he alone) determines. 3 (a) 1 and 2 are also empty phrases, since the determination rested only with Bush. Was his “determination” a surprise to anyone?

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate HIS DETERMINATION that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Bush determined that peaceful means would not achieve 3 (b) 1 and 2. Surprise! The only thing required of Bush is that he inform Congress of his attack on Iraq 48 hours before the beginning of the invasion. Bush complied. He cut and pasted 3 (b) 1 & 2 and delivered his negative determination to Congress exactly 48 hours before bombing. Bush complied with the letter of the law. In 3 (b) 2 we see that “necessary actions” against other terrorist nations are also authorized.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS
(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

The AuMF is a joint resolution, thus allowing the circumvention of the 90 day limit set by the WPA. Section 5 (b) of the WPA puts a time limit of no longer than 90 days for the use of United States Armed Forces in a foreign nation without a declaration of war or a joint resolution (AuMF is a joint resolution) of Congress otherwise authorizing the use of force. The joint resolution covers Bush again.
Bush’s never-seen progress reports every 60 days must make for some interesting reading!
Hopefully this has been helpful and will dispell some of the spin surrounding this law.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. So it wasn't a "Yes War!", "No War!" vote after all? Gee, what will "Present" Obama cry about now?
Edited on Sun Feb-17-08 04:31 PM by MethuenProgressive
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. It was a blanket authorization
giving Bush the sole authority to attack. Did you notice the name of the law?

"Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq 2002"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. A river called the nile. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bilgewaterbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. If a 1000+ poster on DU, such as yourself,
can choose to ignore what the resolution entailed, it's no wonder Hillary gets away with claiming she was misled. Even if she weren't lying, why would I want someone so gullible as President. It'd be like voting for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #16
28. Even longtime DUers are turning into trolls now.
The Clinton campaign is really bringing out the worst in their supporters.

It was obvious from "Day 1" what the IWR was about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
33. These Democrats KNEW it was a callfor WAR,
...and had the integrity to vote AGAINST it.
Hillary should be ashamed!

The Democratic Party Honor Roll
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.

IWR

United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)


United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPKrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. so it was the president that attacked Iraq?
and not Hillary?

OMG :wow:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Correct
Bush attacked Iraq utilizing the Congressional authorization of October 2002.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPKrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. LOL you don't believe that horseshit do you?
he was going to attack no matter what

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. There's no belief involved
Of course Bush was going anyway.
That's another reason to vote NO.
The defeat of the AuMF would have forced Bush to use a national security directive, making the war 100% Bush, 0% Congressional Democrats.

But some Senators thought it would be over in 3 weeks, gas would be 50 cents and there would be ticker tape parades in June 2003.
They didn't want to on the wrong side of that fun fest. Of course even the slightest familiarity with the history of Iraq would have precluded that fantasy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #22
41. touche
all the more reason to vote NO

Let the GOP own it entirely.

Going along to get ahead has proven to be the Achilles heel of those Dems with POTUS ambitions who cowardly voted AYE! And rightfully so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. And all this time we were lead to believe it was Her, on a white horse, in blazing armor...
Gee (Obama), where (Obama) did we get that (Obama) idea?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. It wasn't "her"
It was the 77 Senators who voted yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Clinton gave Bush permission to attack
Blood IS on her hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPKrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. And we all know that Clinton pulls the Bush strings right?
:P

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
47. Doesn't pull the strings
just gave him the string.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. Every person in congress had a choice to make.
They could vote 'yes' to authorize this war, or they could vote 'no' to prevent this war. Mrs. Clinton chose to vote 'yes' knowing full well that her vote enabled their war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #17
42. not to mention
Edited on Mon Feb-18-08 12:45 PM by Carolina
ask Team Hillary when their fearless leader starting speaking out against the war?

She changed her tune only when popular opinion and her stance were at odds thereby jeopardizing her POTUS bid. And when she did speak out initially, it was to say that the war had been managed wrong not the IT WAS WRONG from the get-go!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
7. It's all in the title.
Just as it was with the 8-6-01 PDB "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the U.S," and interestingly both women casually dismissed both as no big whoop, their message pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Danger Will Robinson. Danger.

Gobama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
9. Hillary: "YES HE CAN Go to war!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BringBigDogBack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Love it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #15
35. Thanks. Odd though.
Coming from someone with a DU name of "BringBigDogBack"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indimuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #9
39. Obama...MORE $$ FOR WAR!!!!
300 billion +++ MORE!!! He lied about his position to get elected....FLIP FLOP..!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #39
46. You see no difference
between launching a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no imminent threat to the US
and funding the military that is already engaged?
The two things are utterly different, hence no flip flop.
As asked (and unanswered) down thread, please cite one instance in US history where the US Congress defunded the military while engaged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nomorewhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
10. Day One: "I voted for the Iraq War!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tatiana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
11. Oh have we discussed this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=274593">Why the "'I Was Misled" to Vote for Bush's War Excuse Insults Dems Who Knew Better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rageneau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
18. I support Hillary, but I was furious with her for this vote and if she loses because of it...
it will serve her right.

But I still don't want her to lose, because I think she's better prepared to be our next president in such difficult times. (I don't think BO's Kumbaya is going to work with Republicans, and HRC won't waste any time trying to sing it.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
19. And by continuing to authorize funding for this war, Obama is no better than Clinton.
Congress could refuse to authorize any monies toward this war except for the express purpose of redeploying troops out of Iraq.

When it comes to this, Obama's record is no different than Clinton's,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. you mean Obama HAS NOT introduced any Iraqi withdrawal resolutions? oh no! nt
Edited on Sun Feb-17-08 05:22 PM by msongs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. He did - and sent it to his own commitee where he sat on it and it never came to a vote.
They call those "Vanity Bills" in the US Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. The Iraq De-Escalation Bill of January 2007
is before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
It is your position that Obama is blocking his own bill?
Are you sure that Lugar, DeMint, Coleman, Vitter, Sununu, Corker, Murkowski, Nelson et al aren't sitting on it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Sent to committee, never heard of again. A Vanity Bill.
Sent it to his own committee, where it died.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. There is a huge difference
between authorizing Bush to use military force in Iraq and funding the needs of soldiers already in battle.
Can you name one instance in US history where Congress defunded the US military while at war?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Bush was the only one threatening to defund the war.
By vetoing the reasonable restrictions that were passed by Congress.

However the Democratic Congress capitulated and gave Bush his blood money with no restrictions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Will you stop with that logic thing?
Edited on Sun Feb-17-08 05:46 PM by stevenleser
Hillary supporters dont respond to it anyway. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. We aren't at "war"
We are at "Illegal invasion and occupation of a nation."

Don't accept a criminal's framing of an event, ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #29
48. You are, of course, correct
It's not a war, because the Iraqi "government" is allied with the US.
I was typing to fast. It is indeed an occupation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #23
43. exactly but Team Hillary can't
see that very clear distinction!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Martin Eden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #19
30. 2 very good reasons why Congressional Democrats haven't cut off funding
1) It's a huge political risk with very little political reward.

By forcing a withdrawal through funding cuts, the Democratic Party would take ownership of Iraq and blame for what happens after we leave. The rethugs would point to the ensuing chaos for the next 30 years as exhibit A in why Democrats can't be trusted in matters of national security. It doesn't matter that the disaster was engineered by an incompetent Republican administration -- they would play this to their considerable advantage.

And what would be the political benefits to the Democratic Party? How many antiwar voters are going to switch their votes to Rethuglicans over this issue? I fully understand that I am being cynical in reducing this tragic and costly intervention to a political calculation, but that is what professional politicians do. Forcing a withdrawal would save American lives now, but do much to revive the slumping fortunes of the Republican Party.


2) It's not the most responsible way to exit Iraq.

It may be there is nothing we can do to forestall a bloody civil war in Iraq, but any chance to prevent one would have to involve a coordinated withdrawal accompanied by a major diplomatic effort with Iraqis, their neighbors, and our allies to do whatever is possible to achieve post-occupation stability.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the catch-22 of holding off a withdrawal until conditions vastly improve. It can be an excuse to never leave. We must have the intent to withdraw and follow through no matter what. We also must have a new foreign policy in the region and a repudiation of the neoconservative "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war. If we do these things and demonstrate to the world that the madness of the Bush administration is finally over, there is at least a chance that the people of a country we have unnecessarily turned into a battleground might actually see their lives improve.

There is no chance of implementing such an approach with Bush and Cheney in office. It will take a Democrat in the White House to make the necessary changes. My real beef with the Democratic Congress is their failure to do their Constitutional duty and remove those rat bastards from office through impeachment. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.

Bottom line is, I strogly disagree with the talking point that there is no difference between Clinton and Obama on Iraq due to their votes for funding. Like it or not, the MOST IMPORTANT VOTE occurred in October 2002, and Hillary let us all down by voting to give GW Bush the authority to make this horrible tragedy happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
31. By giving the idiot bush* that power...it gave him more clout to get the
inspectors back in. But sadly the lying bastard never even tried after promising to go back to the UN for a vote. Instead he lied and used his clout to illegally attack Iraq...damn his disgusting hide. The whole world was shocked. I remember being very angry with his deceitfulness. I also remember Hillary explaining that she was giving bush* more authority to get the inspectors back in at the time of the vote...not just after he attacked Iraq. But still, you Obama people want to distort her motive. No sense in explaining anymore...you're set in your ways and thinking because it gives you an excuse to criticize and blame Hillary. It's good politics on your part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #31
44. Oh yes, HRC explaining her vote with those cheap words!
She was covering her ass just in case. Her words were indeed cheap, but her vote just goes on and on and on.

Truth is IRAQ WAS NEVER AN IMMINENT THREAT and Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. Ergo, there was no need for IWR at all. And Byrd said as much in his cautionary and now prophetic speech.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
32. K&R...10/10/02 Byrd / Sarbanes exchange
http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-70_01.html#sarbanes01

"Mr. Byrd: I do, I do. And I say further to my dear friend that as soon as this resolution is adopted and signed by the President of the United States, Congress is out of it. It is on the sidelines. We may wish we could say something. We may wish we could do something. But as far as the human eye can see, we are out of it until such time as Congress asks to repeal this legislation or to put a limit on it internally.

Mr. Sarbanes: Let me ask my colleague this question: Suppose some unforeseen, extraordinary development should take place after this resolution is passed and sent down and signed by the President which transforms perhaps the weapons of mass destruction situation. The President, though, could still move ahead and go to war, could he not?

Mr. Byrd: Yes.

Mr. Sarbanes: They would have been given the authority to do that; would that be correct?

Mr. Byrd: Absolutely. We would have handed this over to the President--lock, stock, and barrel. Here it is.

...

Mr. Sarbanes: That underscores what the distinguished Senator says in this op-ed piece that appeared in this morning's New York Times. I quote:

We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time. Yet that is what we are being asked to do .

Mr. Byrd: Yes.

Mr. Sarbanes: This, of course, is a decision with far-sweeping consequences, certainly as it deals with Iraq and all of its implication. But the precedent is being established in terms of the future, it seems to me, and that constitutes a major erosion of the role of the Congress with respect to the Nation going to war.

Mr. Byrd: It does. And it is easy enough, I suppose, to pass this resolution. But should we try to negate it, should we try to repeal it, should we try to change the law, a President can veto any change that Congress might bring along later, any change it might enact, in order to overturn this law it is now about to adopt.

Mr. Sarbanes: I am glad the distinguished Senator made that point because that is the next item I wanted to go to. People could say: If the circumstances changed and the Congress wants to pull it back, why not come in, pass a law, and pull it back? But the fact is that a President who wanted to keep that authority and may well want to use it, as long as he could keep the support of one-third--not of each House of the Congress but only one-third of one House, either a third of the Senators, plus one, or a third of the Members of the House of Representatives--he could negate congressional action that tried to pull back this war-making authority, could he not?

Mr. Byrd: The distinguished Senator from Maryland is absolutely correct. It only takes a majority of both Houses to pass this resolution, but it would take two-thirds in the future if the President should attempt to veto a substitute piece of legislation by this Congress to abort what we are doing here today, to appeal it, to amend it. One-third plus one in either body could uphold the President's veto, and that legislation would not become law..."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LadyVT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
34. Thanks for the post--hindsight is always 20-20
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Hindsight? Many saw the problems before voting to give Bush
the power to invade Iraq.


http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-69_03.html#byrdresvagueoverbroad

"...The most dangerous part of this modernized approach to war is the wide latitude the President will have to identify which threats present a "high risk" to national security. The administration's National Security Strategy briefly outlines a few common attributes shared by dangerous "rogue states," but the administration is careful not to confine its doctrine to any fixed set of objective criteria for determining when the threat posed by any one of these states is sufficient to warrant preemptive action.

The President's doctrine--and we are about to put our stamp on it, the stamp of this Senate. The President's doctrine, get this, gives him--Him? Who is he? He puts his britches on just the same way I do. He is a man. I respect his office. But look what we are turning over to this man, one man.

The President's doctrine gives him a free hand to justify almost any military action with unsubstantiated allegations and arbitrary risk assessments..."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. Hindsight?
Many (myself included) were furious on the very day it passed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #34
45. You can try that lame excuse
all you want.

But many of us knew then that Iraq was not an iminent threat and that Iraq did not attack us on 9/11.

There was considerable concrete information in the public domain that conflicted with the administration's lines, not to mention common sense dictated that anyone with a brain question the admisitration!

Robert Byrd's speech, cautionary then and proven prophetic now, was to his colleagues BEFORE the vote. But those with POTUS ambitions put their fingers in the politival wind and delivered a blank check to the White House.

It is NOT 20/20 hindsight. It was in plain sight then.

HRC and her Team can deny all they want but the truth is a pesky little thing that just won't go away!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ctdem200 Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
38. Hillary is complicit with this atrocity...still can't bring herself to apologize for this.
Weep over something that matters, wench.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
40. K&R
Edited on Mon Feb-18-08 12:57 PM by Carolina
Robert Byrd's speech was spot on. Interesting, no tragic, that he warned his colleagues about this blank check, but those on his side of the aisle with POTUS ambitions voted for this travesty.

Iraq was never an iminent threat but we all knew then what Bush was! So there was NO EXCUSE whatsoever for a single Dem to vote for this. Recall, as an aside, that not a single repuke voted for Bill's Omnibus Budget Bil in 1993!

Because of IWR it was hard to support Kerry-Edwards in 2004. But alas, what choice did we have.

This time, we do. Edwards, Biden, Dodd... defeated. Hopefully soon Clinton will join them.

Apologies and excuses are not enough especially since NONE of them did much between October 2002 and March 2003 to stop Shock and Awe! There are no do-overs, reincarnation of the dead, or restoration of a society with war. Those who voted for it in 2002 showed a complete lack of political courage, judgment and morality. Past is prologue. They do not deserve to lead now.

Thank you again for posting this. HRC and Team Hillary can spin their 'cheap words' all they want but when she had a chance, she failed miserably.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 11th 2024, 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC