About the IWR Vote

[BlackVelvet04]

Barack didn't get a vote.....

you can't run on a vote you never had the opportunity to make especially after admitting you don't know how you would have voted if you had actually had to vote.
Without being in the same position the Senators who voted were and feeling the pressure and being told what they were told he can't possibly know what he would have done.

What we do know is he said he wouldn't vote to fund the war and yet he did. He claims to have superior judgment and yet he let greed take over and he made a land deal with a thug.....displaying terrible judgment.

He has a tendency to no vote on controversial issues, so I'm not real impressed with what his supporters feel sure he would have done had he actually been able to vote.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Yeah, but we know he was against it.

So the fact that he didn't vote for it is irrelevant, we know his opinion for other means.

That's like saying because Martin Luther King wasn't on the Supreme Court and didn't vote on Brown vs. BoE then we wouldn't know which way he would vote.

[BlackVelvet04]

10. He was also against funding the war until it came time to vote on funding

it. His opinion DOESN'T MEAN SHIT.

[sfam]

If Barack didn't speak out on the IWR vote at the time you'd have a point...

But he did speak out against it, so you really don't have a point here.

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. Bogus argument. He wasn't in the Senate and was here in Illinois where it was safe to be anti-war.

I KNOW because I live here and voted for him and that's one of the reasons I did vote for him. If it was a bad/hard thing for him to do, he would have LOST his Senate campaign.

[HeraldSquare212]

56. Many didn't speak out at all or rabidly supported military action.

He spoke out against it and accurately foretold what the end result would be. I don't know about Chicago, but here in NY if anyone had called it a stupid war they would have been lambasted in the press as not understanding the threat from Saddam. It took courage to speak out when he didn't have to; he could have just kept his mouth shut and no one would have noticed.

[BlackVelvet04]

11. He spoke out against funding the war as well....

he said he wouldn't do it. Did he? Oh, YES HE DID. So what he says and what he does are often two different things.

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. Yes he did say that and yes he did vote to fund the war.

What's that make him? A PEACEMONGER, I suppose. :eyes:

[Crooked Moon]

2. non-starter

mr. obama made his views known in 2002 in a speech delivered at an anti-war rally in chicago. he has, in my view, a credible claim to an anti-iraq-war position.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. He wasn't in the U.S. Senate, so his anti-war stance means shit.

Had he faced the same thing Hillary faced, he'd be singing a different tune right now.

[Crooked Moon]

15. that's a ridiculous statement.

if that's the case, the anti-war passion of *any* non-elected person "means shit".

he went on public record and can rightfully claim a fully staked out position even before the bombs started falling.

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. His anti-war stance is a completely different animal! He wasn't in the U.S. Senate.

His argument is bogus. Period.

[Moochy]

27. Yours is, his isnt.

It's ok though no amount of text in this or any other message will shake blind partisans from deeply held talking points.

[in_cog_ni_to]

40. No it's not. He wasn't in the Senate and didn't have to make the same decisions she had to make.n/t

[Crooked Moon]

33. fair enough

so what do you gain with this argument?

ms. clinton was in the senate and stands by her vote to this day.

therefore, the absolute best you can do is neutralize mr. obama on this point. i don't see what you gain by saying, "the war is wrong and obama wasn't there and i believe that he would have voted for the war" and... what exactly?

that he is "as bad" as ms. clinton in that scenario?

if ms. clinton, being in the senate as she was, had voted no on the IWR, i could see you making a (flimsy) case that he conceivably would have voted yes, thus gaining some pyhrric (if somewhat deluded) "gotcha!".

but you don't even have that. the best you have is "my candidate voted for the war, and i bet he would have, too..."

"gotcha", indeed....

[in_cog_ni_to]

44. If Mr. Obama is neutralized on this point, he has nothing else to run on!

This wouldn't "be an issue" for me if it wasn't his favorite campaign meme. I was against the war, but I don't know how I would have voted if I was in the Senate? Then, he says he would not vote to fund the war, yet when he's actually faced with those decisions, HE DID VOTE TO FUND IT? His whole argument is ridiculous.

[Crooked Moon]

45. i'm glad we worked our way through this...

may i assume that after this careful deliberation, you have decided to back ms. clinton?

[in_cog_ni_to]

49. No. I think I'm supporting Barack now.

;) Just kidding!:hi:

[BlackVelvet04]

14. He made his views known about funding the war as well...

he said he wouldn't, but what did he do when it came time to vote? HE VOTED TO FUND THE WAR.

That rather sets a precedence of saying one thing about the war and actually doing the opposite when it comes time to take a stand and VOTE.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

3. What we do know is that Hillary Clinton voted with the traitors

The 21 Democratic Senators and the majority of Democratic Congresspeople in the House who voted against the war are the heroes. She committed an act of treachery, to the nation and to the party. So if you say you can know for a fact that Obama would have also voted with the traitors, then you're just asking us to vote for one traitor over another.

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. Obama's argument just doesn't wash. He wasn't in the Senate at the time.

He has also said..."I don't know how I would have voted had I been in the Senate at the time."

You are comparing apples and oranges. He was here in Illinois while she was in NEW YORK where the towers are, remember? He didn't have to face the same decisions she had to face. It's a completely different issue.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

21. The Twin Towers? What did 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

In fact, the prospect of the Iraq war to a far-sighted leader should have caused them concern over whether it would divert us from the war in Afghanistan and the need to track down Al Qaeda. If Hillary Clinton used her Iraq war vote to appease those in New York who wanted blood for the 9/11 attack, then she's even more cynical and manipulative than I thought.

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. The IWR didn't give the psycho permission to invade. He was to let inspectors

finish their job and he didn't do that. They were fed Intel by Cheney that he had cherry-picked from the CIA. He shoved it down their throats. They were told MANY things that Barack was not privy to. The IWR stated that he was to HONOR the War Powers Act which states...ONLY CONGRESS can declare war. The psycho broke the law. HE is the war criminal.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

42. Not according to the words of the resolution

Do we have to go through this again, as many times as that notion has been completely discredited here? Nowhere in the Iraq War Resolution does it place any requirements on the President to exhaust diplomatic remedies. The Resolution in fact allowed the President to use the U.S. military "as he deems necessary and appropriate". In fact, in her own speech on the Senate floor, Hillary Clinton acknowledged that the Resolution on which she was about to vote in favor of did not go far enough in requiring a diplomatic resolution. The only requirement in the Resolution was for the President to report back to both Houses of Congress that he was satisifed that he had made sufficient efforts to exhaust diplomatic efforts. In Hillary Clinton's own speech, she admitted that all the Resolution required the President to do was "try Hard". Those are her words. And the Resolution didn't even specifically state that.

The War Powers Act does not prevent the President from going to war. The War Powers Act is intended to stop prolonged wars like Vietnam. In fact, the War Powers Act allows the President to use the U.S. military for 60 days, with an additional 30 day extension before the U.S. Congress can choose to make war or not. In Somalia, in Grenada, in Bosnia, and other recent wars, the President has been able to comply with the restrictions of the War Powers Act but nonethless use the U.S. military. Given modern day warfare and shock and awe, the War Power Act was not relevant to the Iraq War. And at the end of those 60 days, the Congress could have chosen to deny the President further involvement in Iraq but it did not act. You do understand, however, that Bush's "Mission Accomplished" statement, that major combat operations were over, was an attempt to comply with the War Powers Act, do you not? The Iraq War began on March 13, 2003 and on May 1, 2003, barely within the 60 day window, Bush declared the war was over and that we had won. That was intended to prevent the possibility of the Congress declining his ability to make further war. Of course the war went on, but Bush was trying to cover his butt.

And Bush met the requirement of the Iraq War Resolution. He sent a letter to both Houses on the eve of the war stating that his diplomatic efforts had come short and he would exercise his powers under the Iraq War Resolution. In other words, it was a blank check giving the President complete discretion on when to pull the trigger.

You are right to say that Bush is a war criminal and a psycho. Hillary Clinton and the other dishonorable individuals in the Senate were aiders and abettors. They are traitors. To repeat, twenty-one Democratic Senators, a Republican, and an Independent, not to mention the majority of Democrats in the House voted against the war. They saw the same intelligence and doubted it. Russ Feingold's speech delivered on the Senate floor during the same period that Hillary Clinton gave her speech lists doubt, after doubt, after doubt about Bush's justifications for war and the intelligence. It's not like Hillary Clinton wasn't exposed to a massive volume of opinion that indicated the war was unjustified. Nonetheless, she made her choice and she has to live with it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

47. Yes it does. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4370483

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

53. Go to the original source and you will see you are wrong

Here's the actual Resolution as written, from the White House website. The only Section that matters is the one involving AUTHORIZATION. The IWR gives the President the authorization to use the U.S. military as he "deems necessary and appropriate" to "defend the national security of the United States" and "enforce all relevant UN resolutions". Again, he can use the U.S. military as he "deems necessary and appropriate", meaning go to war or not go to war. Nowhere does it say he MUST enforce all UN resolutions. Instead, it lets him decide for himself and only requires that he report back to the Congress that in his determination (see section DETERMINATION) "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."

That this Resolution gave him a blank check is unquestionable. It allows him the power within his sole determination "that further diplomatic or other peaceful means" "will not adequately protect the national security" or "is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant UN Security Council Resolutions". The IWR placed this decision entirely within his hands and that is exactly what the unambiguous language of the IWR says.

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.

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 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.

(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.

[in_cog_ni_to]

65. " Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution."

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


The War Powers Act of 1973
Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973
Joint Resolution
Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. <snip>

http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm

[rhett o rick]

31. It was her vote. She voted to support George Bush and Dick Cheney. No matter what you say

about Obama, she supported the worst president in our history. She authorized him to wage war on an innocent nation and kill a million people.

[Straight Shooter]

43. Seems like there's a quote somewhere about Barack agreeing with bush on the Iraq policy.

But right now I'm tired of digging up quotes on Barack.

He's been voting in tandem with Hillary, except for Kyl/Lieberman, when he didn't even bother to vote at all. Did. not. even. bother. to. vote. That way, he could have his cake and eat it, too; talk against the war, and yet do nothing substantive to stop it.

He also voted to confirm Kindasleezy Rice. What does that tell you? He was in the Senate, then. Hillary voted to confirm, also, but she's already been pilloried as having poor judgment.

He campaigned for Lieberman, a war hawk. What does that tell you?

Barack doesn't distance himself from getting endorsements of Senators who voted for the IWR.

Barack is playing both sides against the middle, and laughing at everyone while he does it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

48. He also voted to confirm the murderous warmonger, General Casey and Hillary voted against him.

How much more evidence do these people need that convinces them Barack's anti-war argument is just stupid?

[rhett o rick]

63. So go ahead and vote for Clinton and kiss the middle class good bye.

NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO sell out our middle class. Thanks Bill.

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. GREAT POST! and don't forget how he CHOSE to line his pockets with Exelon $$$$

instead of making Exelon notify citizens that live around their Nuclear Plants, when they have a Tritium Water leak. He changed his legislation to suit Exelon, the legislation FAILED, yet he went to Iowa and LIED about it.... saying it did pass. Now, when Exelon plants leak Tritium Water, the people will never know and Barack has taken $239,000 from them for his campaign coffers.

[BlackVelvet04]

19. Thanks...

wonder why this isn't a very popular thread? I thought they wanted to talk about the issues instead of cults and such. Maybe not.

[abburdlen]

5. Wes Clark nor Howard Dean

were in the Senate last time around yet for many here their anti-war position was one of the reasons they were supported.

I'm in bizarro world, Obama spoke out against the war: He displayed terrible judgment. Clinton voted to use force in Iraq: She is wise.
:shrug:

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. And Wes Clark also works for Hillary's campaign. n/t

[abburdlen]

12. I know

I admire Wes, I supported him last time and would have this time if he had thrown his hat into the ring.
But I disagreed with him on some issues then and I disagree with him that Clinton is the best choice now.

Democracy is great though, we both get a chance to express our opinion.

[BlackVelvet04]

9. Are you just being deliberately obtuse?

I didn't say that. Now, your assignment is to go back and actually read it and then reply because you deliberately misrepresented what I said.

[abburdlen]

36. I can read

and I can quote

Barack didn't get a vote.....
you can't run on a vote you never had the opportunity to make especially after admitting you don't know how you would have voted if you had actually had to vote.
Without being in the same position the Senators who voted were and feeling the pressure and being told what they were told he can't possibly know what he would have done.

Obama can certainly point to the fact that like others who have run who were not in the Senate at the time, he opposed going to war in Iraq.
If you'd like I'm sure someone can post a video of him speaking out or quote what he said. But I'm sure you know all the facts or you wouldn't be speaking out.
Can Clinton run that she wouldn't have invaded Iraq like Bush did? She wasn't President at the time? How dare she criticize him!

I don't hate Clinton. You can argue she has a better plan going forward in Iraq. You can ding Obama for going back on previous statments but Clinton got it WRONG with the IWR. You'd do well by her to just drop it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

50. Easy for him to say when he wasn't in the Senate facing the same issues Hillary was facing.

BIG, HUGE difference.

[BlackVelvet04]

58. I never said she did the right thing in voting for the IWR....

I wasn't there. I don't know what the Senators were told, what kind of pressure was put on them, etc. I disagree with her decision to vote for it. The point is the Obama supporters act like he didn't vote for it when he didn't have a vote. And they act like they know for a fact what he would have done when he said he didn't know.

[LWolf]

17. Something I've thought and said

since the very first time he said "I was against the war from the beginning" as a primary candidate.

[BlackVelvet04]

20. I personally think his actions on funding the war after saying

he absolutely wouldn't speak volumes about what he really would have done had he voted on the IWR.

[LWolf]

30. I do, too. n/t

[TheDeathadder]

22. To some of us

it leaves a sour taste in our mouth that he said he was against the war but for the most part funded it. Clinton gets nothing but shame for her vote but Obama gets to ride on the high horse even though when his time to vote finally came he voted to fund the war. If Obama people can hate Clinton for voting for IWR, why can't we be turned off that Obama voted to fund the war but acts like he has a record of 100% against the war? To some of us that seems like old school politics.

[rhett o rick]

25. That's what she gets for making the vote, for bowing down to George. For kissing his ass

and killing a million Iraqis and counting.

[BlackVelvet04]

28. She did that all by herself, eh?

What a bunch of hyperbolic bullshit.

[rhett o rick]

39. I didn't say she did, I said she needs to be held accountable for her support of the Neocon

war. How is that hyperbolic?

[BlackVelvet04]

60. Obama is supporting it now by funding it. n/t

[rhett o rick]

62. Almost all Democrats are supporting the funding. I think it is wrong but not as bad

as betraying the country by bowing down and giving Bush/Cheney the power to wage war.

[TheDeathadder]

35. well since Obama entered the Senate

his voted for the war so he must enjoy kissing and killing too. I don't think either Clinton or Obama kiss Bush's ass or have killed Iraqis, but your argument would mean Obama is just as guilty as Clinton since he has funded the war. He came into the Senate as anti-war and everyone knows the power of the purse. He could have stay consistent and voted against all votes of funding. He didn't.

[rhett o rick]

46. To me Obama is guilty of funding the continuation of the war. But to me that pales

beside the authorization of the invasion of Iraq.

edited to fix spelling errors that even spell check can't handle.

[in_cog_ni_to]

52. The IWR did not gove the psycho permission to invade. He was to let the inspectors

finish their job and he didn't do that. That is not Hillary's fault. John Kerry voted for the IWR. Did you vote for him in 2004?

[rhett o rick]

54. You try to rationalize her vote by telling me others also made the same mistake?

And I didn't vote for Kerry in the primaries. I reluctantly voted for him in the general and he made me sorry too.

Apparently the vote to authorize the IWar did permit Bush/Cheney to invade, because they did invade. If I was Sen Clinton and Bush/Cheney overstepped their authority and Fucking invaded a country leading to the deaths of over a million, I wouldn't sleep until they paid, until they were impeached, but not a word from the Sen.

[rhett o rick]

23. Good grief, Sen Clinton made a huge mistake and you are trying to rationalize that

someone else mite have done the same. The vote has lead to the deaths of over a million people, think about that. The vote may lead to the death of our Constitution. And maybe the bankruptcy of our nation. She needs to be held accountable. At the time I, as many, were begging our Democratic representatives to save us from the tyranny of the Bush/Cheney tyranny. But no, for whatever reason, they (she) let us down. A million deaths later, a country completely destroyed and huge damage to this country and you try to rationalize her vote by saying that someone else may have done the same. How can you defend such a vote? She did Bush's bidding. She authorized him to kill over a million and counting. She also sided with Bush on Iran, maybe leading to more killing. Good grief, you have a choice, don't give her your vote.

[BlackVelvet04]

26. No...Obama supporters say he wouldn't have voted for IWR

even though he himself said he didn't know.

Kerry voted for the IWR as well as did Edwards, so I guess Hillary can share the blame with them, eh?

[rhett o rick]

34. There is a lot of blame to go around. Sen Clinton gave Bush/Cheney

the authority to wage war and kill over a million. Shame on her and shame on the others.

[johnnydrama]

41. point

to the evidence he would have gotten if he were in the senate that would have changed his mind?

The fact is, no private citizen could know 100% what the senator's were finding out behind closed doors. That's why he said he didn't know 100% which way he would vote.

But now looking back 5 years later, we know 100% there was NO evidence that the senator's had that would lead them to believe that it was a good idea to go to war.

So there's no reason to believe that Obama would have voted for the resolution.

I'll bet you in 1962 some people that didn't see the evidence yet, were making light of the cuban missile crisis until there was proof beyond any doubt that there were missile bases there.

But in this case, there was nothing there, it was all phony, and that's what he would have found out if he were in the senate. Why would he then change his mind?

[BlackVelvet04]

59. Ummmm.....

because they were presented with false "evidence". As you said we don't know what was presented THEN. What is he seeing now that makes him fund it when he said he wouldn't?

Things change when you actually have to stand up and take a vote.

[rhett o rick]

61. What false evidence convinced them to believe Bush/Cheney? I wouldn't have believed any thing they

said. Funny, turns out I was right and Sen Clinton was wrong. But then she again, let me emphasis again, she voted with Bush/Cheney against the Iranians. WTF Apparently she didn't learn that you always vote against everything the the Neocons and Bush/Cheney want. That should be easy. Always vote against everything, every friggin thing Bush/Cheney want. Why hasn't she learned that?

[johnnydrama]

64. cause

there's 160,000 soldiers on the ground in Iraq who GWB would be happy to let starve, or have no armor to make Democrats look bad.

You really think if funding stopped just like that, that GWB would just say ok, let's bring them home. No, he's paraphrase Rumsfeld and say you go with the army you have. But he'll say, you go with the armor you have, and he'll let them die.

You remember George W Bush right?

[TheDeathadder]

29. Well I think Obama made a mistake of saying

he is against the war, being voted in as being against the war, and for the most part has funded the war. To some of us it sent a message that he was playing politics.

[Moochy]

32. Good thing that decision did not entail trusting a known liar GWB.

[TheDeathadder]

37. well he trusted the known lair GWB

with funding for a war. The same war he said he was 100% against.

[rhett o rick]

38. Maybe Obama did make a mistake, but Sen Clinton gave her support to Bush/Cheney

and the invasion of Iraq. Obama shouldn't have supported funding the war either, but Clinton supported the invasion.

[in_cog_ni_to]

51. NO she didn't give her support to the psycho! Did you read the IWR?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4370483

[rhett o rick]

55. Of course I read it. So if Bush/Cheney invaded without authority, why didn't she call for immediate

impeachment? Why didn't she say anything at the time of the invasion about Bush/Cheney abusing their authorization?

You see to me, at the time, I was saying to Sen Clinton and all the other Democrats, "Do not do Anything George Bush wants you to do". If he wants it, it is wrong, bad, terrible. This should have been easy to understand. Bush/Cheney lie, cheat and steal, why oh why would anyone ever vote in favor of anything, anything they want? I will never forgive her or any of the other Democrats that let me down and let the poor people of Iraq down. Iraq has been ruined as well probably as this country.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

57. You fail to grasp the meaning of the IWR

The War Powers Act gives a President 60 days, with a 30 day extension to introduce the U.S. military without a declaration of war. In addition, the War Powers Acts says this:

"(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The Iraq War Resolution specifically cited as its purpose, the fact that Al Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11 were in Iraq:

"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 American 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;"

The Section granting the President authority under the IWR indicated that he had the Authorization "as he deems necessary and appropriate" to use the U.S. military to combat a matter involving national security. It states:

"(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."

Sub-Section (c)(3) of the War Powers Act specifically lists the President's power to go to war in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." The Iraq War Resolution allowed the President to use the U.S. military "as he deems necessary and appropriate" to act pursuant to the IWR Resolution in taking "necesssary actions" against "those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001". In other words, in having described Iraq as harboring Al Qaeda, it justified him to go after them in Iraq under the War Powers Act, without even getting to the question of the right of the President to use the U.S. military for a 60 day window. And Senators actually signed on to that like Hillary Clinton, acknowledging that Al Qaeda was in Iraq, that going after them was potentially justified as a response to a national emergency involving an attack on the United States. Others like Russ Feingold (you should read his speech on the Senate floor) didn't buy the fact that Al Qaeda was in Iraq and that that justified going to war.

[LordJFT]

66. this straw-man seems to keep popping up

People insinuate that Obama's claiming to have voted against the war when he never has.