Forget Hillary. Forget Obama. This is simply about the cold, hard truth. (IWR)

[Political Heretic]

People still care about facts, right? Facts matter?

Hillary is not "responsible" for Bush's war. She gave him the power, and that is what she should rightly be held accountable for. But he used it. Clearly she hoped that he would use better judgment - she said so in her statement about the resolution. And that hope reflect her own poor judgement. But that's not the same as giving the order. They are not the same, and I am not for a minute attempting to equate her with him when it comes to this war.

Okay? Can we get past that? I've got other reasons for supporting my candidate.

Having said that, there are a pair of posters here that are repeating the same untruth over and over again today. That untruth is that Bush violated the resolution by rushing to war, that he was under some obligation in the resolution to first take certain steps before going to war and that he did not do that. They are attempting to create the impression that Congress felt the resolution was "safe" because there were supposed to be certain checks Bush was required to follow before he could order a military invasion.

THAT. IS. FALSE.

And the truth needs to still matter around here, otherwise what the fuck is the point of anything we're trying to do?

PLEASE READ THE TEXT OF THE RESOLUTION FOR YOURSELF. Don't read commentary. READ THE RESOLUTION:

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

The resolution, leaves it completely up to the president to declare on his own when diplomatic options would not accomplish the objectives - without setting any criteria, simply making it his call. It immediately authorized the use of force. As you can read, there was NO REQUIREMENT that he notify congress prior to invading. He was only required to give them the heads up that he had already done it AFTERWARDS.

These posters are trying to make it seem as though the following proposed amendments were part of the passed resolution:

The Spratt Amendment

Required U.N. Security Council authorization for any use of force against Iraq. In the event that the Security Council would not authorize use of force, the President would be required to come back to Congress for a second vote before acting unilaterally. Sponsored by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC).

Defeated 155 - 270 - NOT PART OF THE RESOLUTION

The Lee Amendment

Urged the President to work through the United Nations to resolve the dispute peacefully. Sponsored by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).

Defeated 72 - 355. - NOT PART OF THE RESOLUTION

The Byrd Amendment

Affirmed that no additional constitutional authority was being ceded to the President outside of that necessary to deal with the threat posed by Iraq. Sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV)

Defeated 14 - 86. - NOT PART OF THE RESOLUTION

The Levin Amendment

Urged to U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding that Iraq grant immediate and unconditional access to U.N. weapons inspectors. Authorized U.S. use of force only if Iraq failed to comply with the U.N. resolution. Sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)

Defeated 24 - 75. - NOT PART OF THE RESOLUTION

The Durbin Amendment

Restricted the use of force authorization to cover only an immediate threat from Iraq rather than a continuing threat. Sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).

Defeated 30 - 70. - NOT PART OF THE RESOLUTION

The AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ resolution gave the president the IMMEDIATE power, if he judged it necessary, to invade Iraq, with no preconditions, no further congressional oversight requirements and no limitations.

Can we please, for the love of fucking god - at least tell the truth about this.

[graywarrior]

1. What's Flase?

[crispini]

2. heh.

Is it like a flask, but maybe another kind of thing? :D

[graywarrior]

6. Oh goody, we can get drunk on it.

[Political Heretic]

4. rofl - I read your post and STILL didn't get it. I was like, ARE YOU BLIND???

:rofl:

I fixed it now.

[doyourealize1]

3. thanks for the impartiality

[havocmom]

5. Fact is: Most of us knew the vote was for war, that bush would invade with that in his pocket

So, either HRC voted for the war or a bright, connected US Senator, engaged in the people's business and with all the resources of her position, could not see what was right in front of all of us. If that is the case, she may be too impaired for a more advanced position.

[redqueen]

7. Wow... I honestly did not know that.

[blm]

8. That OFFICIAL letter to Congress is the lie - his 'decision' to use force based on THREAT

to our nation's security. It is illegal for a president to LIE in an official letter to congress.

There was no threat determined (after the steps were taken to inspect and negotiate) as he claimed in his letter.

In fact, all the steps proved that force was NOT needed so it would be impossible to make a determination the United States was threatened.

[Political Heretic]

10. The resolution gave the PRESIDENT the power to decide that.

He ceded all authority to him to decide when, where and how force was necessary.

[blm]

12. His letter to congress was to declare a threat was there. Like it or not, congress is

not supposed to be lied to in an official letter and they shouldn't 'expect' it either.

Where the lawmakers failed was in standing against the war when weapon inspections were working to PROVE force was not needed. THAT is a more significant point when Dems should have stood together against the use of force.

The iWR didn't take this country to war - the Downing Street Memos proved Bush was going in anyway. The IWR would just be a political tool for Rove and the media to claim it was a vote FOR war and that Bush HAD to go to war. Had that IWR been administered faithfully with adequate consideration of the weapon inspections and increased diplomacy (as per its ref to original UN resolution), there never would have been an invasion.

You do realize that even if the IWR was written in a way that even Kucinich would vote for it, like he did the 1998 resolution, that BushInc still would have violated that and likely stepped up their efforts to PLANT the WMDs - and do so till they were successful. Then where would be at this point?

[Political Heretic]

13. I agree with a lot of that acutally, or am very close to it

Yeah... I agree with a lot of that. I didn't make my original post with all kinds of outrage about the IWR as though it single handedly "caused" the war. My outrage was purely as a truth crusader. All morning I've been dealing with this posts making claims about supposed provisions that the resolution contained that it simply did not contain.

Voting for the IWR was wrong. And twenty three senators, including some who were on the intelligence committee and privy to all the information knew that and voted against it. But you're right - BushINC would have found away to invade anyway. AND the downing street memos proved that. And lawmakers failed in standing against the wary when inspectors were working to prove force wasn't needed.

All of that stuff.... i'm with you.

[blm]

16. Even worse, when the Senator who would later become the nominee STOOD AGAINST the

decision to invade because the weapon inspections and diplomati measures were working, the other IWR Dems would not stand with him and instead stayed supportive of Bush's decision.

THAT was the dividing line that was most blatant to me. If a Dem voted for IWR in hopes force would NOT be needed, then they had better have protested the decision to invade - PERIOD!

[Political Heretic]

19. Yes, well said.

All making sense to me.

[SeaLyons]

9. All the (dem) senators that voted for this authorization

deeply regret it and wish they could take it back. Everyone agrees.

Thanks for the post.

[Political Heretic]

11. Not disagreeing with you - adding: its important to remember the twenty three (?) who voted no.

That is a big reason why I have so much hurt and anger towards the ones who voted yes, though I'm not asking for them to be run out of office. Twenty some senators, including some who were on the intelligence committee and saw the information we didn't see, knew the resolution was wrong. And they had the courage to go against Bush's popularity (at the time, I know its hard to remember that far back) and the constant threats of being soft on 9/11 terrorists to do the right thing.

[SeaLyons]

21. We can all hold hands in agreement

when it comes to this tragic war.

[Political Heretic]

22. AMEN!

:hug:

[mythyc]

37. yep. love the war room pic too

:)

[Tatiana]

14. Bottom line is that Congress abdicated their Constitutionally-mandated duty. n/t

[TahitiNut]

28. There's a serious question whether they're legally able to do that w/o amending the Constitution.

When the Constitution delegates the sole and exclusive authority to declare war to Congress, most Constitutional experts are agreed that they cannot legally cede that authority to the Executive by any means other than an amendment. The "War Powers Act" has NOT been tested in the Judiciary. The IWR is similarly untested.

[Political Heretic]

30. Right! The section in the authorization that rationalizes how it jives with war powers act

is a really interesting bit of mental gymnastics!

[suston96]

15. What exactly did Hillary say? Here:

"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

*****

........ A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

But Hillary Clinton's vote was the deciding vote and she was the only Democrat who voted for the war resolution, eh? Is that correct? She is the only one who was betrayed by the Bush lies and phony intelligence, eh? Yeah!

[Political Heretic]

17. I acknolwedged that she said that, even credited her for it. But it's NOT what the resolution said

Again, this post isn't about attacking hillary. Its about getting the facts straight on the resolution.

I believe Hillary sincerely did not want the resolution to be used as justification for a new doctrine of pre-emption. Hear me? I believe her.

However, her hopes were not backed up by ANYTHING in the resolution ensuring that would not happen. Instead, the resolution ceded all power to bush, with no concrete conditions or checks to that power, and then congress crossed their fingers and prayed.

Those who voted in favor of it were wrong to do so. Does mean they should be finished in politics. Doesn't mean they are evil bastards who do no good ever. It just means that they were WRONG. And we should be honest about that.

[suston96]

18. The resolution was based on Bush and Cheney and others' lies.

You attack Hillary Clinton for partisan political purposes and you thereby give the real perpetrators a pass on treasonous acts of fraudulent intelligence to promote war.

Keep up the good work You are doing a heckuva job!

[Political Heretic]

20. What the FUCK are you talking about? I haven't been attacking Clinton **AT ALL**

Holy hell... you must just click and paste some pre-formatted response in without even reading.

I've fallen all over myself in this entire thread to make CLEAR that, its not about Hillary, that I believe her intentions with the resolution, that I'm interested only in clarifying the facts about the resolution itself.

I said in my OP that I would never equate her responsibility for her vote to Bush's responsibility for the war, and all kinds of other positive things. I haven't once used anything I've been saying about the amendment to turn it into some attack on Hillary.

[suston96]

25. "At all"? You said: ""She gave him the power..."

"...... and that is what she should rightly be held accountable for...." That is what I responded to.

[Political Heretic]

26. How about not taking it out of context?

I disagree with Hillary's vote. That's not an attack. That's a position. But in disagreeing, which is not wrong or hateful, I went out of my way to be reasonable about it.

I said:

Hillary is not "responsible" for Bush's war.....

She gave him the power, and that is what she should rightly be held accountable for.... (as should all who voted for the amendment, they were wrong, they made a mistake - a tragic one at that)

But he used it. (which is worse)

Clearly she hoped that he would use better judgment - she said so in her statement about the resolution. (acknolwedging the sincerity of her intent, another favorable point)

And that hope reflect her own poor judgement. (An opinion, not an attack, that votes for the IWR were an avoidable mistake)

But that's not the same as giving the order. (Again, reiterating that you can't just "blame hillary" for the war - its not fair, its cheap)

They are not the same, and I am not for a minute attempting to equate her with him when it comes to this war. (once again defending Hillary)

What more do you want from someone who is not a Clinton supporter?????

[suston96]

27. You said "she gave him the power...." "She" did not give him anything. The Congress did. nt

[Political Heretic]

29. Wait... I'm confused....

She is in Congress, right?

The point I was making, in context was attempting to soften some of the attacks that have been made today. Yes, she (along with other congress persons) gave him the power. But he used it. He bears a special responsibility for this war - a war that as blm pointed out he would have found a way to wage no matter what.

I'm sorry, if you won't be satisfied until I give Clinton and all other congress persons who voted for the Authorization a free pass, then I guess there's nothing I can do for you. But I have gone out of my way to be even-handed in my comments and not unfairly exploit Clinton's mistake or exaggerate it beyond what it was.

And frankly, I think that's going to be clear to most who read this thread.

[suston96]

31. I repeat what you said: "She gave him the power...." Next time choose your words carefully....nt

[Political Heretic]

32. She did give him the power

along with every other congress person who voted for the authorization. And they all bear the responsibility of their mistake.

[suston96]

33. Right, Congress gave him power to do nothing until all other efforts were exhausted, and.....

....assuming that the Intelligence provided by Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz et al, was not falsified and verifiable.

Quit blaming the wrong people and giving Bush and Cheney and Wolfowitz a free ride. No one is talking about them and their treason but instead they are concentrating on Hillary Clinton's vote because it is politically gratifying to do so..

[Political Heretic]

35. That's completely untrue, and all you have to do is read the resolution to prove it.

Congress gave him the bother to BOTH use force as soon as he saw fit, and to define for himself when, according to his definitions, all other efforts were exhausted. And twenty-three senators, including some on the intelligence committee who saw all the evidence, voted no. Twenty-three knew the case wasn't there, knew it was wrong, but had enough courage to go against a popular president (at that time) and popular sentiment for war (at that time).

You keep writing things that don't make any sense, like quit giving Bush a free ride. Well, once again, if you simply have basic reading comprehension you see that I haven't done that. Anywhere. I opened my original post with very clear statements saying that while congress may have ceded him the power to wage the way, it was him and his administration that made the choice to exploit that power, and they are responsible for that.

[yodermon]

23. I trust that Hillary, as President, *will* prosecute the

real perpetrators for treasonous acts of fraudulent intelligence to promote war, then.

Cool.

[blm]

34. She wouldn't even sign Kerry's letter of inquiry for the Downing Street Memos.

EVERY senator who voted for the IWR owed their signature on that letter.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. She was NOT betrayed.

As the OP pointed out, all authority to go to war was in the resolution itself. Her signing statement notwithstanding, she voted for the resolution that gave him the authority to start a war at his discretion. She was wrong, as were way too many others.

[MethuenProgressive]

40. Great post, suston! The HillaryHaters who constantly post Bush isn't responsible for the Iraq War...

... are giving him a pass just for the chance to spout HillHate.
It's really disgusting they claim they don't think Bush started the Iraq War.

[Political Heretic]

41. Bush did start the Iraq war, as I've already said multiple times. With power ceded to him

by Congress. He didn't violate the terms of the resolution... he fulfilled the requirements of the resolution exactly as they were laid out.

Congress empowered him to wage war, and he did it.

[davidpdx]

36. I thought PH's post was pretty supportive of setting people straight on HC's war vote

especially given he's an Obama supporter. I'd also like to point out it only takes one person to come in from the other side to take a dump and cause a problem.

[MethuenProgressive]

38. It's not her fault GWB violated the terms of the resolution.

Blaming her for Bush's War is lazy logic.

[Political Heretic]

39. He didn't violate the terms of the resolution.

And all you have to do is read the resolution to see that.

But keep up the karl rove tactics of just repeating the same lie over and over.