I'm a pacifist and would have voted for this "war" resolution. Read it!

[candice]

Please read the resolution. I am a pacifist and would have voted for this resolution as phrased. Diplomacy was supposed to be undertaken.

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

First is the rationale for the authorization. Go read it. The laws passed in 1998 may have been based on false intelligence.

The finale is Section 3. Section 3 relies on the fact that a president of the United States is not expected to lie to Congress and the American people to start a preemptive war. In retrospect, who would give Bu$h any authorization to do anything, but he was appointed 5-4 by the Supreme Court as the president.

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.


Imagine if you were a Senator from the state that suffered Ground Zero. This devastation was still very compelling to you and your constituents. The other Senator from New York voted Yea, too, and he is a bright, admirable man.

The country was hoping that Shrub wasn't just an empty suit. He didn't have much to offer but the corporate-owned media foisted him on a public that doesn't really pay much attention to politics. Gore rolled his eyes while debating Bu$h (Gore's thought bubble: "Why am I here on stage with this MORON!"). Tweety kept repeating the urban legend that Gore said he "invented the Internet"--still good for a laugh among the uninformed. People just wanted the tax cut, not to pay for any services so the election was "close." Had Jeb Bush not been governor of Florida and ensured that many solid Gore votes wouldn't happen (purging voting rolls, stopping recounts), Gore would have been president. But Gore was really too evolved for most Americans. The empty-suit Bush (whatever you want me to be, I am) was sold as the true inspired next new thing. No experience really, but trust him.

What you as a Senator were voting for was an authorization to go to war IF it was justified. Common sense enough. All diplomatic means had been taken and the U.S. was endangered, according to national intelligence (a lie).

What no one other than the Neo-Cons who had planned this war in their heads for years and were just waiting for a malleable "president" who would implement it, was that the Iraq "war" was a done deal. The "intelligence" was cooked. Cheney and Rice and Bush started their TV chants about mushroom clouds and imminent danger. Joe Wilson's report on how there was nothing there was buried. Cheney's motive was oil and Halliburton.

It seemed to me that if Sadaam had nuclear weapons, he would lob them over to Israel since getting them here would be rather difficult, but he could pass them off the Al Queda. Certainly, not many would miss Sadaam if he were to vacate the area. The U.S. made yet other deal with another vicious dictator to further our political agenda at the time. We supported him in his war against Iran and our tax-payer dollars armed him.

Obama was NOT in the Senate and wasn't part of the process. Good. Neither was I. The real question is why those who sold us the war are not being held accountable.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/06/hillarys-tied-h... /

"So Hillary has to navigate perilous waters–trying to expose the superficial gloss of Obama’s positions without being accused of sullying the Obama mythology. For example, a terrific speech in 2002 (almost always selectively quoted) becomes the defining position even though Obama declined to stand with Russ Feingold and others who actually made a stand to oppose the war. When Bill Clinton points out, correctly, the disingenuous blarney of Obama’s so-called valiant stand, it is Bill Clinton who becomes the bad guy."

[TacticalPeek]

1. That resolution got inspectors into Iraq with unlimited access to look anywhere we sent them,

and an offer from Saddam to abandon his regime and to go into exile.


That was its goal so the resolution worked, and it makes little sense now to blame Clinton or Kerry or Edwards or Dodd for the fact that George Bush was too stupid to recognize or accept success.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Yeah....Right!

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

And so, what part of the title don't you understand?

And did you notice the little part that states that at the end of all of the ink spilled forth onto this document, it will be at the President's discretion?


(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—

-------------------

You, are not even close to being a pacifist. Not even remotely close.

You might friend, have been hosed.

Ask
Levin
Graham
Feingold
Chaffe
Boxer
Durbin
Kennedy
and on and on and on -- a total of 23 senators could read titles of bills they were voting on.

Next excuse....

[FrenchieCat]

3. and then read the Levin amendment when you get a chance.

the one Hillary voted against.

OK.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

4. The Resolution placed no requirements on the President to exhaust diplomatic remedies

It gave him open and unfettered discretion to decide for himself when the time had come for war. Section 3 (b)(1) and (b)(2) gave the President the discretion to use the U.S. military "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate". It only required him to report back to Congress with his own determination that further diplomacy was not warranted, which he did. After he submitted his letter and 60 days beyond the limits of the War Powers act, the Congress could have prevented him from continuing the war. No one objected. Here's his letter satisfying the only requirement of the Iraq War Resolution, a report, which he addressed to both Houses of Congress:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

[krkaufman]

5. But that's not the point. We KNEW Bush would use the resolution to take us to war...

... and that his "diplomacy" was just to fill time between the Fall and the planned launch of the war the next Spring.

(the title sorta hints at it, too)

[candice]

6. Many of us also knew the media was foisting an empty suit on us with W.

...handling him with kid gloves and puffing him up like a real contender. Gore rolled his eyes. Alas. Those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

[krkaufman]

10. What does this have to do with the context of my response to the previous poster.

The statement is non sequitur.

[Tatiana]

7. I've read it numerous times and come to the same conclusion.

It is a complete abdication of Congressional duties, as Congress has the power to declare war. Instead, IWR gives this power to the executive branch.

Not only did the Congresscritters know this was an authorization for war, they felt they could vote for it and then espouse the same logic you do here: that is to say, they never wanted to go to war, they only wanted to get the weapons inspectors back in. There appeared to be some absurd strategy (which backfired) that they would be able to blame this war on the President if he f*cked things up and shake their heads in mock sorrow over the fact that a known liar lied to them.

[cali]

8. Oh, please. I've read it several times. No fucking way would

I have voted for it. My Senator compared it to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. He said it was a blank check and unconstitutional. He said it would likely lead to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. He warned about the difficulties of an occupation. He was right then and he's right now.

[LadyVT]

9. You can't argue someone out of an infatuation...

That's all it is.

[cali]

11. how stupid. my opposition to the IWR is years older than

my support for Obama. Inform yourself. You are terribly uneducated if you don't understand that the Authorization to Use Military Force was an authorization to use military force. duh. It has nothing to do with supporting a candidate.

Pathetic to see the revisionsist history by the hilly acolytes, blinded by their cultlike adoration.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

12. Throw it out there and see if it sticks to the wall...

better cook this one a little more.

[Radical Activist]

13. Then you're easily duped.

Because that's what all those provisions were about.

[calmblueocean]

14. With more pacifists like you, we'd all be dead!

I'm sorry, but either you are not a pacifist, you are lying, or you do not understand the powers the resolution grants the president.

This resolution in essence handed Bush a loaded gun and said, "This is yours to do with as you please."

That's what this part means:


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" -- meaning it's all up to him. No oversight, no controls, no limits.

And the part up there that says "AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES"? If you would vote for that, you need to turn in your pacifist card at the door.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. This says all I need to know about this post.

"It seemed to me that if Sadaam had nuclear weapons, he would lob them over to Israel since getting them here would be rather difficult, but he could pass them off the Al Queda. "

Saddam had three major enemies - Iran, Al Queda, and the US, in that order. He would NEVER give nukes to AQ, because Bin Laden declared him to be an infidel and would be just as likely to use it on HIM.

You're an idiot.