Would you have voted for or against the IWR?

[Guaranteed]

Poll question: Would you have voted for or against the IWR?

Just wondering.

If you would have voted for it, what was your reasoning?

[lastliberalintexas]

1. I would have voted against the IWR

But then, I've not seen all those double top secret intelligence reports that some of our candidates saw that persuaded them we must invade. I wonder if the reports were on CIA letterhead, or if they came straight from Halliburton to save time?

[BayCityProgressive]

2. This is difficult

in the context that we went to war under I would definately have voted NO. However, I backed the first Gulf War because Saddam invaded another nation. Invasions are unacceptable. If there was a movement within Iraq of Iraqi people who opposed Saddam and we had reason to think they would be better for the nation than Saddam..I would support backing them militarily given the fact that Iraq has used WMDs and invaded a nation before, also because he was a repressive dictator. So I don't know if that makes me liberal, conservative or somewhere in the middle. I do believe in "Nation Building" when done right. This was a main goal of liberalism and worked well in stopping the spread of antidemocratic communism into Western Europe and it worked in Japan. I also supported Clinton's intervention in Kosovo.

[BayCityProgressive]

3. if it weren't

for France helping us and "nation bulding" we wouldn't be the country we are today.

[Guaranteed]

4. Right...but in this specific situation it was George W. Bush

looking for a fight, and oil. We all knew what he was doing.

[curlyred]

16. that's the point

It's not like Bush had been trustworthy up to that point. Everyone knew what his motives were, and they STILL voted for IWR. That's my problem with Kerry and his judgement. He can spin his vote any way he wants, but he should've known how the damn thing was going to turn out.......we all did, and so did millions of people around the world.

[politick]

54. and he even said

we all knew Bush would fuck it up -- he just didn't know it would be that bad. So my guess that his cynicism is even worse than we give him credit for, in that he voted for it, hoping Bush would screw up. That he was willing to go in and kill thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of American troops for his own politcal gain. That is inexcusable.

Of course, I will never know what his intentions were, and we may never know. That's just how it sounds from here. He may yet convince me otherwise, but that's my guess.

[lastliberalintexas]

7. "Nation building"

We Americans need to learn that this approach only works if the people of the other nation desire our aid and help. The majority of the Vietnamese did not, and neither did the Iraqis want us in their country. Iraq may in time become a flourishing democracy or republic- or it may turn into the next pseudo-Islamist regime hell bent on our destruction. We've done nothing to help the development of real self-government by the Iraqis.

Humanitarian and financial aid to the region, under the auspices of the UN or the Red Crescent, would have done far more for the real democratization of the area. But that's not what this invasion was about. We wanted their resources, and we couldn't guarantee our access any other way.

[FloridaPat]

8. Would you have backed the first Gulf War if you knew that:

1. President Bush, through his ambassador to Iraq, gave Sadam permission to settle the "border dispute" with Kuwait.
2. The story about the Iraqis charging into a hospital and throwing babies on the ground was a lie.
3. That the thousands Iraqi soldiers on the border to Saudia Arabia was also a lie.


It was another Bush fiasco. Half the solders from that war are on disability or requested disability for the Gulf War Syndrome.

I think the best policy to follow is not to allow republicans into a position of power.

[no name no slogan]

46. Might I add a fourth to this

4) Kuwait was "slant drilling" for oil underneath Iraqi territory: in effect, violating Iraq's sovereignty and stealing its oil. Iraq had gone to the UN about this, but nothing was done to stop Kuwait.

Kuwait had "invaded" Iraq and was stealing its resources. If that had happened to the US, I'm pretty certain we would have dealt with the perpetrator militarily, too.

And also, let's not forget the 10,000 US Gulf War vets who have died since the end of the war-- mostly of causes related to Gulf War Syndrome.

We knew this family was made up of liars and schemers-- how could ANYBODY trust them in the first place?

[Gin]

5. We invaded a sovereign nation...and set a dangerous precedent...

Our surveillance was so close that we could watch them walk down the street...Iraq was no threat.

We did not need to be rocket scientists to see that bush was settling an old score...doing an oil grab and paying off debts to friends...all the while using our kids as cannon fodder.

May he never have a moments peace.

[DaisyUCSB]

9. the resolution wasn't a vote to invade or not invade

It was actually agreed apon by most democrats who did sign it as an attempt to get the UN on board, more than any other reason.

[Guaranteed]

11. Who woulda thought Bush would have used it to invade Iraq?

On edit: BTW I'm a UCSB alumnus, 2001. Go Gauchos!

[lastliberalintexas]

13. Well of course it was a surprise to me

I was absolutely positively SHOCKED when we invaded. At least I can take comfort in knowing that my party's leaders were just as naive as I was. ;-)

/sarcasm/

[DaisyUCSB]

18. But he DIDN'T use it, nor did he need it, to invade Iraq

More than anything it was a confirmation that congress was in agreement with the executive branch that (international) pressure was necessary to be put on Iraq to comply with UN resolution 1441, because 1 - The UN Wouldn't be able to infuence the action without the resolution, and 2- we couldn't have gotten inspections going without the congressional resolution.

It wasn't even called the "iraq war resolution"

[Snivi Yllom]

25. But if he did not need it or use it

why vote for it in the first place?

[Guaranteed]

27. If Bush didn't need the resolution to invade, why did we need it

to go to the UN?

[DaisyUCSB]

30. Because the executive is only one branch of government

and the UN would never have come to the table unless congress asked them to.

It never would have ramped up inspections unless congress asked them to, as the resolution did.

This is one of my pet peeves with Dean, his entire campaign was in large part based on a misrepresentation of the resolution , and the people he was misrepresenting were playing catchup the whole time. Other than Sharpton and Kucinich on one side and Lieberman on the other, all of their positions of the right means and the right ends are basically the same.

Dean only came out saying he WOULD HAVE voted against the resolution after it was unsuccessful in getting a second UN resoltion, unsuccessful because of France, something that wasn't a definete.

[Guaranteed]

38. You just said Bush didn't need Congress's approval.

The UN should have known that, right? They're smart folks. They should have known that the president can invade whoever he wants as long as he says that they're a grave, immediate threat to the US.

So, I'm still not sure I understand why Congress needed to authorize the war for Bush to give him more sway with the UN- since he already had the power.

You're contradicting yourself. You can't say "Congress didn't authorize Bush to go to war because he already had the power" AND "Congress gave Bush the power so that he could go to the UN" at the same time. You gotta pick one or the other.

[DaisyUCSB]

59. Bush commands the US military and one seat at the UN security council

I never said congress needed to "authorize war" to do anything, because they NEVER DID authorize war. They needed to ask the UN to join with the US and Briton to put an international pressure on Saddam Hussein, preferably with a second UN resolution for Iraq to comply with 1441. I'm not contradicting squat. You seem to living and breathing the propaganda from the people who never bothered to get a handle on issues dealing with the Iraq war other than those coming from the anti-war movement.

[Guaranteed]

62. Okay...now you're just making stuff up.

The IWR was not passed to ask the UN for another resolution.

[DaisyUCSB]

63. Bull ! "Why We Need a Second UN Resolution" - Joe Biden

Why We Need a Second U.N. Resolution
By Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., (D-Del.), is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This op-ed column was published in the Washington Post March 10 and is in the public domain. No republication restrictions.

France, Russia and Germany are engaged in a game of dangerous brinkmanship at the United Nations. Some in the Bush administration have responded in kind. Together, they threaten to drive the interests of our countries over a cliff. There is still time to pull back from the precipice and disarm Iraq without dividing the Atlantic alliance and debilitating the Security Council. That will require real leadership on both sides of the Atlantic.

President Bush was right to take the Iraq issue to the United Nations; Secretary of State Colin Powell has been valiant in his efforts to build consensus there. But for some in the administration, not going to war has never been an option, no matter what Iraq does. That became clear last week when the White House -- in the middle of the diplomatic endgame -- said that even if Iraq gives up all its weapons, that's not good enough; Saddam Hussein has to go. I support that goal. But regime change is not what the Security Council endorsed in Resolution 1441. Moving the goalposts this late in the game is a bad way to win friends and influence allies.

Similarly, for some in Europe, going to war has never been an option, no matter what Iraq does not do. Resolution 1441 requires Baghdad to make a full, accurate and final accounting of its weapons programs and to actively cooperate with the inspectors. Four months later, Iraq has not done so. And just as it has spent the past 12 years shirking its obligation to disarm, Iraq will spend the years ahead building up an arsenal of destruction if we fail to enforce the Persian Gulf War terms of surrender. Yet France and its followers now demand more inspectors and more time, while ruling out deadlines and the use of force. That tells Hussein to sit tight and watch the West divide itself.
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/press/0310biden.htm

[Guaranteed]

66. OH...you mean the Biden/Lugar resolution.

Yeah, that's not the one that passed.

[DaisyUCSB]

71. No. that's not what I mean. The congressional resolution passed was

neccessary for a second UN resolution. Did the UN ultimately pass one? No. But congress needed to atleast try. None of this matters to you people though because you never bother to think critically about propaganda when it reenforces your own biases.

Also, inspections couldn't have been ramped up without a congressional resolution

[Guaranteed]

76. Yes...supposedly because it gave Bush the power to invade.

Thus, putting pressure on the UN to actually do something.

However, it was NOT the Biden/Lugar resolution, which would have required the UN to pass yet another resolution in order to give Bush final authorization to invade.

[DaisyUCSB]

102. Why don't you just admit you didn't pay enough attention to the issue

Bush did not need any congressional resolution for the power to invade. We didn't have a congressional resolution for Panama, for Kosovo, for Bosnia, for the Desert Fox, but this isn't about "the UN doing something". This is about congress asking the UN for a second resolution, a resolution that in lamens terms would have put international pressure on Saddam to comply with the "first" UN resolution(in terms of relationship to the second) also known as UN resolution 1441, which required a number of things that the international community could have gotten done that quite possibly could have prevented the ultimate invasion but gotten Saddam to either exile himself or drastically reform in the best case or invaded through the UN in the worst case. The position of the people who trot out the "anti-IWR voter" propaganda(who think that it was called the Iraq WAR resolution probably) is that therefor, we shouldn't have even tried to go to back the UN

[Guaranteed]

107. HERE IT IS: H.J. res 114:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107Bsip0Q::

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

--H.J.Res.114--

H.J.Res.114


One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

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 United States 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;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it


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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) 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 regarding Iraq.

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.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- 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 3 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 the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- 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 the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (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 such resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.


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

I've read it MANY times. It's a fucking RUBBER STAMP. LOOK:

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.

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

He didn't even HAVE to go to the UN. The only reason he went is because Powell TOLD him to, and he did that WELL before the resolution. And even THEN the only reason that Bush DID it was to BUY TIME TO BUILD UP OUR FORCES IN KUWAIT. This resolution was a RUBBER STAMP. READ IT.

[DaisyUCSB]

111. "going to the un" is not the same thing as getting a second UN resolution

And you can't give a rubber stamp for war powers you already have. Which he had when he was inagurated, which the next president will have when he or she is inagurated.

You either believe that that a second UN resolution would not have been preferable and/or possible beyond the shadow of a doubt, or that the attempt to get such resolution was a noble cause or you don't.

You also recognize that a POTUS has the legal obligation to consult with, not get permission from congress to engage the military in conflicts, or you don't recognize that.

[Guaranteed]

112. Of course it was a rubber stamp. LOOK AT THE TITLE.

"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"

It gives Congress' approval to use force against Iraq. That's EXACTLY what the text does.

Or did they mistitle it? Should it have read "Authorization for President Bush to go to the UN and ask for a 2nd resolution on Iraq other than the one they've already passed"?

No. Because that's not what it did.

[goobergunch]

114. Actually, Bush* could have only stayed in for 90 days

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 indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(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.

(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.
CONSULTATION

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
REPORTING

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

SEC. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.
CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL

SEC. 6. (a) Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and such committee shall report one such joint resolution or bill, together with its recommendations, not later than twenty-four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

(b) Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(c) Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out not later than fourteen calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). The joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution or bill passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such resolution or bill not later than four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than the expiration of such sixty-day period.
CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

SEC. 7. (a) Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and one such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

(b) Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(c) Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such concurrent resolution within six calendar days after the legislation is referred to the committee of conference. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.
INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION

SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--

(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or

(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.

(b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.

(c) For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.

(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--

(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or

(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.
SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint resolution and the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 10. This joint resolution shall take effect on the date of its enactment.
CARL ALBERT
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

JAMES O. EASTLAND
President of the Senate pro tempore.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm

[Guaranteed]

69. By the way, that was written March 10, 2003

about a week before the invasion. That looks like a last-ditch attempt by Biden to stop it.

You know the IWR passed about 5-6 months before that, right? It was a little late then to be passing Congressional resolutions to send to the UN.

[DaisyUCSB]

75. An effort to stop a rush to war that the so-called IWR didn't endorse

The same effort(of stopping the unilateral rush) that could have been prevented with a second UN resolution, a second UN resolution that from the beginning couldn't have been possible without the congressional resolution

[Guaranteed]

77. So what did that article have to do with a resolution

that was passed 5 months beforehand?

[DaisyUCSB]

105. It had to with your accusation that I "made up" the fact that without

the congressional resolution, we couldn't have gotten a second UN resolution, because Biden clearly states the same position that democrats who did sign the resoltion, at least including Kerry and Edwards, had before and all after the resolution was passed that they did so in the hopes of a second resolution. When you said "I made it up"

[Guaranteed]

109. It's your pro-Kerry spin.

The IWR authorized the war. YOU want to say it only authorized Bush to go to the UN, but, unfortunately, you made that up.

[DaisyUCSB]

113. No, actually none of that is true, and you never stop putting words in my

mouth

First of all, I don't want Kerry to get the nomination.

Second of all, The congressional resolution 1 - Did recognize the preexisting legal authority of the commander in Chief, under US law to enforce the security resolutions.

Which is the worst of what it did, but it was also necessary, and I hope you'll tell me why it wasn't necessary, for the UN to pass a second resolution so that the enforcement of the UN resolutions, particularly 1441, where done under the auspices of the UN, similar to the first gulf war.

And 4th? of all, it was necessary to ramp up the inspections process and get inspectors on the ground in Iraq. Something you haven't stated whether you support, or for that matter whether you would have supported a second resolution, a resolution that was made possible, but ultimatly never came to fruition because of the Iraq resolution

[Guaranteed]

116. It wasn't necessary because Congress didn't MAKE it necessary

THAT'S the part that you made up. You keep saying that Congress FORCED Bush to go to the UN by passing this IWR...no, they didn't. I pointed out why IN THE TEXT.

[DaisyUCSB]

123. I never said congress forced Bush to go to the UN

I said the UN would never have had the possibility of passing a second resolution, which would have made it an international pressure against Saddam, without the congressional resoultion, and they were promised by the executive Branch that they would exaust the diplomacy to get that second resolution.

Also, and this is key, it got inspectors on the ground. The democrats who signed it who didn't support and never supported the Neocon go it alone rushed strategy, should according to you people be penalized for not being psychic. The Second Resolution was never passed, but I am one person who clearly sees that getting inspectors in and putting international pressure on Iraq to comply with 1441 was better than just doing nothing and not even getting inspectors in, as the congressional resoluton was necessary for all of.

[Guaranteed]

124. The UN could have passed another resolution any time they

wanted to. They weren't counting on Congress to do anything for them.

The lesson to be learned is that those within have a lot more power than those without. And the inspectors were a temporary compromise, born of the Bush administration's seeming determination to start the war, from the UN that stalled the US only long enough so that they could build up troops in the area.

You'll remember that at the time we Democrats had control of the Senate...Slapping down that resolution and speaking out STRONGLY against the war would have made a HELLUVA statement against Bush. It might have destroyed the whole plan. As things went, we lost control of the Senate AND went to war anyway (since Bush didn't even need anything more that 1441 from the UN). Way to go. And I'm not psychic, but I knew what was going to happen. So did Congress. Everyone saw how bloodthirsty Bush was.

The Democrats could have made a real difference, but they were too cowardly to make a stand. They could have at least affected public opinion with legitimate opposition.

[FloridaPat]

40. Bush needed it to stop talk on any other subject right before

the election. It tied the Democrats up for 6 weeks and then the Washington sniper tied the nation up for the rest of the time. Also remember, the UN was waiting to see what Congress would do before they passed the resolution. They knew what was coming. The Democrats should have just tabled it until after the election. It cost them the senate and a lot of house votes.

[GreenArrow]

47. Public Relations?

I think it would have looked better. Both Kerry and Edwards agree that taking Saddam out was the right thing to do. They agree that the UN and our allies should have been involved. (except Edwards thinks that we couldn't let the UN hold us hostage.) They both knew the invasion was bullshit. But it was US policy. See Iraq Liberation Act of 1988. And they continue to support the bullshit.

[vision]

44. No it wasn't unless you read the resolution

It said that the Congress "supported" the President in resolving things diplomaticaly but it gave the President "Presidential Determination" and authorization to decide what force to use and when.

The Dems who thought it was only to get the UN on board I guess did not read the resolution.

[DaisyUCSB]

56. determination and power he already had and posessed

but had no chance of being influenced or dampened by the UN unless the resolution was passed

[Guaranteed]

61. Oh, I see.

Yes, after the IWR was passed the UN did a bang-up job of "dampening" the Bush administration's push toward war.

The IWR was Congress' rubber stamp on the war.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. Voted no in this poll

But if I were a Senator making a serious run at the Presidency in a time when any dissent against the person pushing IWR was considered akin to terrorism itself, yeah, I'd have voted for it. Let's face it - these guys had NO choice. Hindsight is 20/20. If WMDs had been found, a lot of us would have been saying "THANK GOD ONE OF OUR CANDIDATES VOTED FOR IWR! WE STILL HAVE A CHANCE!" I don't think it really matters, honestly, because any IWR vote was one based upon lies by Bush.

[lovedems]

15. You know,

I find myself in agreement with you. Look at poor Cleland. What happened to him was totally unfair. That does not make it right but this effed up administration has mastered fear. They present it to the people and then exploit it. The fact that Cleland stood up to the administration, rightly so, cost him his seat. That sucks big time but the fuckwad had MOST of the country convinced that we needed the PA and that Saddam was going to nuke us. Not a good position to be in for those who KNEW the truth. I don't think the majority wanted to hear the truth. Hell, there are still those out there who don't want to hear the truth and are convinced Saddam was involved in 9-11.

[Guaranteed]

24. Cleland voted FOR the IWR

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

....and he STILL was called unpatriotic, and lost his job.

[lovedems]

29. But he voted against the PA. That is why they were able to exploit his

vote and run those terrible ads against him.

[greatauntoftriplets]

32. Only Feingold voted against the Patriot Act.

Cleland voted for it.

[lovedems]

33. Crap, I must have short term memory loss!

I could swear he voted against it. He must have wanted to dismantle it or something before the 2002 election because there was a reason they ran those attack ads against him. I could swear it was because he voted against it!

[goobergunch]

42. They ran the ads against him because of

sticking up for labor rights in the Department of Homeland Security bill.

[lovedems]

53. How exactly does that relate to all of the comparisons to OBL and

Saddam? I am not doubting you for a moment, I just don't see the connection! Jeesh, I think I am losing it.

[salin]

101. exactly... but they apparently were effective despite the direct link

this is what we are up against. No candidate will be immune from awful smears (and likely innuendos about obl and saddam) - regardless of how they voted on anything. The only defense will be to be quick in response and to take the offensive (keeping them reeling rather than the other way around).

Cleland lost limbs in one war - ran against a chickenhawk, voted for the IWR and PA... but challenged on a particular aspect Homeland Security - and for that was smeared in the campaign as being soft on national security and thus (on screwed up logic) abetting the likes of OBL. Ridiculous claim - and full of Chutzpah given Chambliss's service record... but they did it anyhow. Nothing is beyond the GOP campaign machine.

[lovedems]

35. Then why I don't I see any posts bashing him? He is not running for

pResident but he is campaigning like hell for Kerry. Why is it acceptable to call him a hero and Kerry a villian if they both voted for the same damn thing? Would you be calling Cleland a demon if he were running for President? Will you call him bad if he gets the VP slot by chance?

[Guaranteed]

39. Alright then.

Screw Cleland. The bastard should have voted against the IWR.

We need new leadership.

[lovedems]

43. Answer this question for me...

I agree the dems should have voted no, they should have stood on principle. However, that being said, the republicans had the majority convinced (and we have stated on this board that sometimes the majority aren't all that smart) that Saddam was ready to nuke us and that he helped OBL carry out the deaths of 3,000 people on 9-11 and that he had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. OK, now that we have history in context, tell me what would have happened to the democrats had they stood on principle and voted against it while at the same time the republicans constantly accused them of being soft on defense.

What would have happened to the democrats? What would our political landscape look like today? Honest question. Honest answer.

[Guaranteed]

48. Honestly,

what this comes down to is LEADERSHIP. Public opinion would not have been swayed in the way that it was if our party leaders had come out unified and strongly against the war. There were a LOT of people out there (people like my dad) who were very suspicious of Bush's motives, but the problem was that they didn't see any real opposition to Bush's plan. When those people on the fence saw such a lack of opposition, they thought, "Well, there must be a real reason that Bush wants to do this. Maybe we really ARE in danger." On the other hand, those who were firmly against the war were demoralized and felt alone- many of them, also, slowly broke.

THAT is what happens when a party's leadership doesn't do it's job. If people don't have someone in the limelight to really get behind and stand up for what they believe in, they question themselves and ultimately break down.

I remember late 2002/early 2003 as being one of the most horrible times of my life- KNOWING what Bush was doing to us, yet so little opposition coming from our party. I will NEVER forgive Kerry and Edwards for their cowardice- unless they admit to it.

I was called an "unAmerican son-of-a-bitch" to my FACE, at WORK, for being against the war. I'll never forget that. And I can't help but think that if John Kerry or John Edwards had STOOD UP for the right thing, and for those Americans who were willing to stand up for their own convictions, that maybe that wouldn't have happened.

And maybe the WAR ITSELF wouldn't have happened.

[lovedems]

51. I remember democrats being creamed for voicing any objection.

I will be the first to admit that the democratic leadership has been weak. Hell yes it has been weak. I will be the first in line to bitch about Daschle. However, I think with the republican controlled WH and congress calling all of the shots and painting the democrats into a corner, it put them in a terrible situation. We realistically could not afford to lose anymore seats in congress in 2002. You at least have to admit that was true. The chimps administration painted this "you are with us or against us" and he meant that at home as well as abroad. Then he was showing all of the evidence he had about Saddam. Now, again, I agree the leadership could have been better and a viable alternative could have been presented to the people but cripes, everytime someone at least TRIED, they were immediately the subject of scrutiny.

I understand your anger completely and my intentions were to pick a fight with you or anyone else. I knew the chimp was lying and I was scared to. I was NEVER for this war. I was looking for an alternative from the dems and there were times I would think I would find it then, nope, they somehow managed to discredit or slime the one speaking out. I can't hold Kerry and Edwards as responsible as you. I don't like their votes but shit, the last 3 years have been miserable for democrats and finding good leadership has been difficult in part because I don't think the republicans would allow a good leader to stand up. It is hard to be taken seriously when these bozo's suddenly make a joke of your career or decisions and they didn't care whose reputation they ruined, as long as it fit the republican political agenda. I guess my point is, I can't hold the dems entirely responsible, look at the crooks they have been up against.

Thanks for hanging around in the discussion. While I agree with you on alot of points, it is just not total agreement. Hopefully there aren't any hard feelings. :hi:

[arwalden]

85. That's Wishful Thinking

real life is different.

These guys aren't idiots. I'm not even a professional politician and I could smell exactly what the IWR was. I find it frustrating that even at this late date there are still so many others who can't (or won't) see it for what it is.

-- Allen

[Guaranteed]

92. That's not wishful thinking. That's what the Bush administration did.

They stood up strong for something that they wanted. Even though invading Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or terrorism, they, through simple repetition and determination, and through the doubts of the public, managed to lead the country, begrudgingly, down the path to war.

It would have taken a lot of strength to stop them, but a resolute and unified voice from the Democrats could have done it.

[arwalden]

126. I Choose To Look At Things More Realistically

You are free to continue believing what you choose to believe. We've reached an impasse. Do as you please and find your own justifications for it... make excuses later.

This endless barrage of bickering and pointless contradictions and having undeserved scorn heaped upon me has become tiresome.

I'm thinking we're done here. So... See ya at the polls! Or not.

-- Allen

[vision]

45. So did Carnahan

both voted for it and were told that they were not patriotic. Both lost.

[Guaranteed]

49. The truth is that neither of them WERE

patriotic- at least in that particular vote.

They should have had the courage to stand up for what was right. They might have saved their jobs.

[Gin]

119. So..the decision to vote yes if one is running for office...is to save

his or her job...Some were not afraid...why did others vote no? what did they hear or see that made them make that choice?

[cavebat2000]

10. I wonder...

what % of those who say nay support John Kerry. Can anyone smell hipocrisy?

[OhioDem]

12. Abrogation

I don't hold anyone's vote on the IWR against them, because there has been a general trend in recent decades toward these kinds of resolutions, but technically such resolutions are unconstitutional.
Only congress can declare war. You can say that we never formally declared here or in Vietnam or Korea, but remember that the use of "
"declare" is from the 18th century, when technologies of instant war did not exist, and all wars were declared formally for both internal and external reasons.

What the framers were talking about was the power to engage in war. The articles and letters of the framers of the Constitution make this very clear. They did not conceive of undeclared war, and did not approve of war being based on an executive decision. They wanted it to be difficult to go to war, and to make sure that wars would not start on behalf of special interests when the decision had nothing to do with protecting the nation.

[Snivi Yllom]

14. Interesting, 88% voted against

How many marched against the War back in February and March, but now those feelings and efforts are for NOTHING.

My NYC march was not for nothing.

[lovedems]

17. Why don't you consider future wars?

Maybe there are those of us out there who think 2 wars are enough and are fighting to get the chimp out so he can't invade willy-nilly for the next 4 years. He won't give a shit what we say about it. He won't face re-election.

While the Iraq war is a disaster, we can't go back and undo it. What we do have the power to do is prevent more wars between 2004-2008.

[Snivi Yllom]

19. What makes you think there would not be more of the same

If Kerry or Edwards were in office? The evidence is that given the same circumstances it could happen again.

Show me I'm wrong.

[lovedems]

31. Because Kerry and Edwards first of all didn't have a VP who was interested

in making his former company billions of dollars, there wouldn't be a sitting pResident who had to clean up the mess his daddy left behind. The democrats might have voted for regime change but according to Madeline Albright that was through sanctions and containment. According to the regime change democracy in Iraq would come from within, from the bottom up, the way democracy is suppose to happen.

As far the evidence showing that Kerry or Edwards would have attacked Iraq uni-laterally, I think that is bullshit. If you want to find an argument in that, go ahead but I don't believe that. Iraq happened under a republican controlled house, senate and WH and they are the ones who need to be responsible for this action.

I guess I have more faith in Kerry in Edwards because they would not have led us to invade a sovereign nation without our allies.

[Snivi Yllom]

64. did you know Kerry wanted to use unilateral military force in Haiti?

And you tell me Kerry is different?

This is from an oped from the NY Times that Kerry wrote May 16, 1994:

"Haiti’s military rulers continue to thumb their noses at the United States and the rest of the world. Since the ouster of President Jean-Bertrande Aristide in September 1991, the international community has consistently tried to pressure the junta to step aside, but nothing has worked --not diplomacy, not tighter sanctions, not a partial naval embargo. By tolerating their defiance and unrelenting brutality, we have empowered Haiti’s military thugs. As a result, our credibility as a world leader is at stake. Haiti’s military leaders must now be put on notice that we’re prepared to take all steps necessary to restore democracy and prove to all renegade elements that we mean what we say. We need to pursue an aggressive diplomatic course, to escalate sanctions and to impose a total naval blockade if necessary. But if those don’t work, we must be willing to seek international approval to use military force."
----------------------------snip-------------------------------------

"But the prospect of a Vietnam-like quagmire can be avoided by guaranteeing at the outset that military action will under no circumstances lead to a U.S. occupation of Haiti. Any intervention should be followed with the immediate insertion of a large international peacekeeping force. The presence of a neutral, civilized power will allow Haiti to rebuild its political institutions, its schools and its health system, and provide some cooling-off time. This could be accomplished along the lines contemplated in the July 1993 accord at Governor’s Island, which was supposed to have led to the return of Father Aristide. Some will argue that the last time we went into Haiti, we stayed 19 years. But that invasion was in 1915 -- an age of colonialism that has long since been repudiated. In 1994, we would be going to wrest the nation from the grip of a tiny elite and return it to the vast majority of Haitians. The difference between occupation and liberation is dramatic."
--------------------------------snip---------------------------------

"The military power should be massive, to minimize casualties, and the intervention should be short. Granted, it will take leadership and persuasive power to build the coalition. But the United States succeeded in both regards in Grenada, Panama and Iraq, and there’s no reason it can’t accomplish the same for Haiti. Some of those governments have expressed reluctance to commit to a military solution before the current diplomatic strategy has time to mature. They miss the point. Failure to threaten the use of force now would significantly increase the probability that diplomacy will fail. In the end, we’d wind up where we are today: unprepared and with a weak hand. If ultimately needed, any intervention should use vast military power to minimize casualties and the time commitment. Once the coup leaders were ousted and the allied forces replaced by peacekeepers under the United Nations, the technical assistance and financial aid promised in the Governor’s Island accord should be expanded and undertaken to insure the restoration of democracy."

[Guaranteed]

28. We need to show our leadership that we're not going to tolerate

their cowardice. Otherwise, we'll see this over and over.

[edzontar]

20. I marched. e-mailed, etc.

And that 88 percent against is quite a contrast to the actions of our prospective candidates, eh?

And people wonder why we are so "angry"?

How sad.

[Snivi Yllom]

23. an interesting poll would be how many who marched protested

And expressed so much passion and energy will forget about it all and now support a candidate that enabled the war they protested.

[edzontar]

34. Not me. In the GE, since I'm in PA, I will vote Dem no matter who

But I do not think it is my place nor is it my DESIRE to preach to others as to how they should vote.

Last I checked, voting was a RIGHT and a matter of conscience.

[Snivi Yllom]

52. Correct, voting is a right

And you have the right to use that right as you choose. Not as mandated by any political party.

[goobergunch]

21. No fucking way. (n/t)

[greatauntoftriplets]

22. Anyone who has not read "The Price of Loyalty" should.

Bush was planning to go to war against Iraq weeks after he took office.

[poskonig]

26. Despite my bitching, probably yea.

With any other president, the answer is of course yes. But Bush complicates things by being so transparently eager to go to war.

Hussein was not allowing the inspectors in during October 2002, and sending him a clear signal America was serious about disarmament was important. It would be tough, because one doesn't want to let Bush run wild, but one doesn't want to let Hussein do whatever he wants either.

[aldian159]

36. I would have voted for it

Knowing what I knew the. We had to hold Saddam accountable in order to show the world we meant business. What if we were wrong and he launched a WMD against Chicago, or NY, or DC?

However, I've taken a complete 180, due to the lack of intelligence/integrity that this administration broadcasts.

[Jacobin]

74. watching Fox much?

The information about Iraq was ALL over this board before and after the vote.

NYT had op ed pieces from Bush I cabinet members warning in dire terms about what has happened.

Should we also invade Israel? They have LOTS of WMDs and they are led by a madman too.

[West Coast Democrat]

37. You sort of have to look at the question from the potential

candidates' point of view---and back in 2002.

[anti-NAFTA]

41. Hindsight bias.

Congressional Democrats didn't know that the war was going to backfire on them. It seemed like it was going to be another huge victory for Bush back then. If I had been a Senator or Congressman I would've voted YEA in fear of getting voted out in either 2002 or 2004.

[Guaranteed]

50. I was rabidly against this war

even when it became popular.

[anti-NAFTA]

95. So was I.

But I didn't know it was going to be a disastrous occupation. I was against it on moral grounds.

[R3dD0g]

55. I knew * was lying from day one.

It really disturbs me that the Sens & Reps could not discern this.

[corporatewhore]

57. Iwould not give bush permission to use my father in an oil war any one who

would shame on you

[edzontar]

73. I adore your graphic!!!! This sums it up.

The guy on the RIGHT is SO much more "Electable" than that other guy, don't you think?

I mean, it is NIGHT and DAY.

[kiahzero]

58. Not sure

Let's not forget that the War Powers Act would have allowed Bush to go in without Congress at all. My understanding of IWR is that it called for inspections in Iraq and interaction with the UN, things Bush didn't want to do.

[CTLawGuy]

60. I voted for it

because I dont want to be called a massachussets liberal... Oh wait, that's Kerry.


I personally would have voted against it.

[buddhamama]

65. Against

If i was doing my job as a Rep. of The People,
i would have done my homework first, and known what much of the world
and many in this country already knew, it was BS.

much of the "evidence" that was presented as a cause for bypassing the UN and heading off to War, would have been
shown for the sham that it was, if the Reps. and more of our citizens would have accessed alternative news sources, utilized the internet.

[Sean Reynolds]

67. 17% would have?

Yeesh, more proof DU has taken a hard turn to the right.

What next, 20% will come out against abortion?

[arwalden]

68. PLEASE CLARIFY: If I Were A Senator? If The Vote Was A Public Referendum?

Because my answer would be different for either circumstance.

-- Allen

[Guaranteed]

70. If you were a senator.

If you'd been in Kerry or Edwards' position.

[arwalden]

79. As A Politically Savvy Senator, Seeing The Trap Had Been Set I Would Have

voted "YES" rather than have myself labeled and viewed as being "soft" on going after the Satan himself who was jerking off with Saddam.

Lookit... this war was going to happen no matter how Kerry or Edwards voted. It was in the works from week-one. The vote was a meaningless exercise and would have rendered anyone who voted NO impotent or as "traitors" or "soft" or would have threatened their electability.

-- Allen

PS: Thanks for quickly clarifying what you meant. I wonder how many people answered the poll based on their own gut instincts and distaste for war and Bush... and how many answered it as though they were senators making politically wise choices.

[Guaranteed]

81. It wasn't meaningless because leadership affects public support

See my post #48 above.

[arwalden]

84. Yes, It Was Simply An Exercise And A Trap.

Public support or not, this war was going forward. Bush's war was going forward as it had been planned from week-one. Those who voted for it are political professionals and know what it is they are doing.

Those who suggest that Kerry or Edwards have some sort of reckless bloodlust and that they are war-mongers who don't care about the lives of our military are simply idiots.

This is a convenient non-issue for those folks who would never have voted for Kerry or Edwards to begin with. I could be wrong... but I find it odd that people who are so opposed to Bush's war are doing NOTHING to actually remove him from office and are planning action that will actually help him remain in office.

This immature, reckless and naive behavior just boggles my mind.

-- Allen

[Jacobin]

91. Then why did this "political professional" vote against GWI

I'm stumped!!

How bout you?

[arwalden]

108. Oh Good Grief!

Maybe because 9-11 had not yet happened. Ya think? Perhaps the country was in a different mood. Ya think?

I'm not here to play games or to entertain people by engaging in a series of contradictions. Yeah-but, yeah-but, yeah-but. There's always a "last word" to be had and always some OTHER excuse.

People should vote as they see fit. If they honestly think that the candidate they vote for actually has a chance of getting Bush out of the White House... then that's the candidate they should vote for.

I still believe that the majority of people who think that way are ill-informed about the dynamics of how elections actually work... and the majority of the people who think that way are being selfish and sanctimoniously reckless with their vote.

All in the name of "having principles"... the irony of it all!

-- Allen

[Jacobin]

117. Good grief right back atcha!

:-)

Everyone else supported it, mostly. It cost us nothing. It was supported by the U.N., and the Arab countries. It accomplished a defensible and finite goal.

It will be used against Kerry as a political misstep (just as this one will be shown to be a misstep by anyone paying attention).

Why must Kerry and his supporters always have it there way, even when monumental blunders are made. Its quite Rovian

[arwalden]

122. I Don't Believe You Have Anything To Worry About

try not to lose sleep over it.

-- Allen

[Guaranteed]

94. I was against the war.

Kerry voted for it. Therefore, I won't vote for Kerry.

While it may boggle your mind, it's really very simple.

[arwalden]

106. Only Two Candidates Stand A Chance At Becoming President

and you may choose whether your vote (nor non-vote) will benefit Bush or Kerry (if he's nominated).

That's the simple part, my friend. Who will your principled vote/non-vote benefit?

Those who feel as as you do are free to do as you please. But for them to pretend as though they aren't actually helping Bush is simply amazing.

-- Allen

[Guaranteed]

110. I don't have to vote for either of them. That's the beauty of democracy.

Don't tell me I'm HELPING Bush by NOT voting FOR Kerry. YOU AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DO NOT OWN MY VOTE. You have to EARN it. That's what makes my vote WORTH something.

[arwalden]

118. But You ARE Helping Bush. You ARE, You ARE!

If your vote is actually valuable as you claim, I do wonder why anyone would choose to throw it away so recklessly. Apparently it's not really "worth something" after all, is it? Simply amazing.

To "earn" the votes of folks like that the Democratic party would have to swing so far and so hard left that it would lose 10 votes for every 1 vote it gained. That's not a very smart political move to appease the conceit of a whole group of fringe one-issue voters.

In the end you'll need to decide what's more important to you or what benefits the country more. Then you'll have to live with the consequences of your decision.

If those folks want to cast a vote that benefits Bush, then they are perfectly within their rights to do so. 'Nock yourselves out. Y'all do your thing and the people who take seriously the task of removing Bush from office will do our thing.

See ya at the polls... or not.

-- Allen

P.S. YOU *ARE* HELPING BUSH BY NOT VOTING FOR THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE! You are. You really really are. (To use the words of another DUer...)

In our system, only two candidates have any actual chance of winning. What subtracts from the weight of votes behind one increases the weight of votes behind the other. All political strategists understand this, and thus all campaigns involve two prongs, one aimed at raising turn-out among one's supporters, and one aimed at depressing turn-out among supporters of one's opponent. It does not matter which proves most effective: what is aimed at is the maximum favorable differential between the number of votes cast for one's candidate, and for the opposing candidate. It is similar to equalizing pressure within some shell to the outside atmosphere to prevent bursting: increasing the pressure outside will do as well to support the structure as decreasing the pressure inside.

The course advocated here by some, to with-hold their votes from the nominee of the Democratic Party, in our electoral system, must have the effect of increasing the weight of votes behind the Republican candidate, and could lead to that candidate having more votes than the Democratic candidate. As the Republican Party today, beyond cavail, represents the worst elements of reaction in our polity, to act in the manner suggested is to act in support of the worst elements of reaction in our polity; it is, as a matter of practical effect, to sign on to the enemy's attempt to suppress turn-out favorable to the Democratic nominee. Such effective co-operation with the worst elements of reaction is a damned odd way to demonstrate the zeal of one's attachment to left and progressive principles.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[West Coast Democrat]

78. That wasn't the question

now was it?

[Jacobin]

86. Let me put your question in "bold" and read it again

Would you have voted for or against the IWR?


Just wondering.

If you would have voted for it, what was your reasoning?

Ya know, I've read it over again a few times, and I'm having a terrible time understanding how I don't understand your question. Presumably, you are a Kerry supporter (I may have no choice come November). Perhaps you have access to the KerryWritingSchool software that can spew out all the reasons that Kerry didn't vote for the IWR, and one of the features is an ability to ask questions and then pretend that people don't understand them. If so, its working nicely.

However, given the fact that I do understand the meaning of the words in the question, and the syntax and what has happened since the invasion, I am forced to change my answer as follows:

Hell NO, and I would have joined the hundred plus other congresscritters who voted against it and fought to stop Smirk from his war play.

By the by, there is an excellent new blog on the wonderful renaissance of IraqNam I would encourage all and especially the senator from MA, to read:
http://tompaine.com/blog.cfm/ID/9942

[arwalden]

83. When The Question Is Framed As "If I Were Senator"...Then My Answer Is YES

if it were framed as a public referendum, then my answer would be NO.

I, sir, am neither a "lurker" NOR am I any type of insurgent from the "right" who has co-opted(?) this poll. --- I think the term that one nomrally uses is Freeper... but I'm not sure.

Perhaps all the yes votes that are so alarming to some people are actually mirroring the politically savvy votes of Kerry, Edwards, and others.

-- Allen

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arwalden]

103. Yes I'm Insulted... But I'll Answer Your Questions Anyway

You are incorrect, sir. I do not support the Iraq war. -- But if I had been a US senator, I would have voted in the affirmative

To borrow the words of another DUer...

The IWR contained elements of a political trap. If sufficient Democrats had voted against it, the entire Party would be slurred as soft creatures seeking to tie the hands of the man seeking to defend the country against Satan himself, and the great majority of the populace would have rallied to that cry. This line was launched anyway, but without the effect nationwide it would have had, had the vote been much closer.

The vote for the resolution preserved viability for campaign for higher office, and that is why Sen. Kerry, and Sen. Edwards, cast the votes they did. They preserved themselves from widespread harm, which is the chief object of political calculation. Persons incapable of political calculation would do well to avoid the profession, and will experience difficulty in commenting on persons who are professionals at it.

The position you and others have of steadfastly "never being able to support a candidate who "supported the war" is flawed. The dichotomy is not false, but built in to the functioning of the system.

In our system, only two candidates have any actual chance of winning. What subtracts from the weight of votes behind one increases the weight of votes behind the other. All political strategists understand this, and thus all campaigns involve two prongs, one aimed at raising turn-out among one's supporters, and one aimed at depressing turn-out among supporters of one's opponent.

It does not matter which proves most effective: what is aimed at is the maximum favorable differential between the number of votes cast for one's candidate, and for the opposing candidate. .

The course advocated here by some, to withhold their votes from the nominee of the Democratic Party, in our electoral system, must have the effect of increasing the weight of votes behind the Republican candidate, and could lead to that candidate having more votes than the Democratic candidate.

As the Republican Party today, beyond cavail, represents the worst elements of reaction in our polity, to act in the manner suggested is to act in support of the worst elements of reaction in our polity; it is, as a matter of practical effect, to sign on to the enemy's attempt to suppress turn-out favorable to the Democratic nominee. Such effective co-operation with the worst elements of reaction is a damned odd way to demonstrate the zeal of one's attachment to left and progressive principles.

I wish I could have said it myself, but the above paragraphs and thoughts are the fine work of a DU member whom I admire greatly, The Magistrate.

-- Allen

[Jacobin]

120. The prose is very smooth

The argument is quite seductive. The end result is blood, guts, mayhem and disaster for thousands upon thousands of people. When good people do nothing, your arguments stand, but the result is carnage. We can sweep away cowardice and refusal to point out insanity, and by our actions enable the mayhem, and justify it with pretty words, noble end goals, and "political practicality".

Neville Chamberlain would be proud.

BTW, NONE of my questions were answered.

[arwalden]

125. Name Calling Is Not A Way To Encourage Me To Answer Your Questions

Nor does it have the desired effect of making me more more receptive to your ideas.

It's not Kerry's war. It was Bush's war.

This "discussion" is pointless. In the end everyone will vote (or not) as they see fit. Either they want to cast a vote that will *benefit* Bush or they will cast a vote that will help to remove him from office.

Only one of two people will be president... the ultimate question is... which candidate will their vote ultimately benefit? And which candidate (of the ONLY two who will become president) which candidate is best for America and best for the world?

I think you've already made up your mind and this bickering appears to be little more than entertainment for you. This discussion has run its course and now we're simply repeating ourselves with a series of contradictions.

I'd rather be politically practical than politically naive and impotent as some other people are choosing to do. I can live with my decicion... will they be able to live with theirs?

-- Allen

[poskonig]

121. I'm not pro-invasion.

Read #26 above.

[LoZoccolo]

80. Back then I remember being for the resolution...

...because I didn't believe they'd exaggerate anything like these claims of there being weapons of mass destruction. I just didn't think they'd lie - and that they did is outrageous. When it became clear that we were being reckless, telling the UN we didn't need their permission, and acting like we didn't need to actually have the inspectors find them, despite the fact that this war would have huge consequences as far as how the middle east views us, I knew something had gone terribly wrong.

[West Coast Democrat]

82. Heck, even Al Franken was pro-invasion!

Is he a right-winger? I think people misunderstand the question and its implications.

[Jacobin]

88. The majority of Germans supported Hitler

That does not make it right.

The fates are not kind to people who make horrible miscalculations regarding the killing and maiming of thousands. Too busy to pay attention is not an excuse

[West Coast Democrat]

99. The point is, many good people were misled

What has it got to do with Hitler?

[wabeewoman]

89. I would have voted no

bush did not even want to ask Congress for permission and refused to do so for some time. When he did it was rushed through with very little debate (remember Byrd's passionate cries for time to debate such an important issue)and it authorized a 'blank check' as they called it at the time. I'm not particularly intelligent or well-read but I do pay attention and there was no way he would have sold me that bill of goods. That is why I don't have too much sympathy for those who bought it. Senator Byrd and others didn't-why did they?

[mvd]

90. Against

Bush can not be trusted one bit.

[bigwillq]

93. A definite NO! n/t

[Leilani]

96. I Voted No

I watched most of the debate on the Senate floor, led by Byrd, & I could not understand all the yes votes.

I'm not a brain surgeon, but I knew Saddam posed no threat.

Also, to excuse Senators voting yes, as political expediency is what's wrong with Washington.

Funny, Lincoln Chafee, a Republican had the courage to go against his own party, & vote no.

[Guaranteed]

97. Now THAT'S courage.

I'd vote for that guy.

[lams712]

98. I would have voted a resounding NO!!!!

I NEVER bought into the link between Hussein & bin Laden and knew there were NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!

[Slice]

100. Abstain

nt

[Hippo_Tron]

104. At the time Yea... Now, not a chance in hell I'd vote for it.

Of course over the past year I've gone from being centrist to fairly liberal.

[Indiana_Dem]

115. Oops I thought it said AGAINST the war not 'for or against'--

so I accidentally put yes.

I was against it because I didn't think there was an imminent threat. I was upset that they never gave any specifics and I really thought something was up when Bush & Blair had that special meeting right before the invasion after the U.N. wouldn't side with us. I knew they were determined to do it for some unknown reason. I also read an article someone emailed me from indymedia regarding EU and oil. Also, I saw all the anti-war demonstrations around the world and knew this wasn't going to be a good thing. Another thing that made me against it was a website I saw in which it played the song "What a Beautiful World" while displaying pictures of everyday Iraqis doing things everyday Americans do. It really hit me hard knowing that they were about to be invaded and their lives would change drastically because of us. I was so sad.