ARGH, FRUSTRATED, need help locating Iraq Resolution info

[WilliamPitt]

I've been googling like a maniac for two hours, called Byrd's office to no avail, and am now here to beg for help.

My memory is this:

They drafted the original Iraq War Resolution with language opening the door for war against "Iraq and the region."

My memory is that Senator Byrd made sure the words "and the region" were stricken from the IWR.

But I CANNOT find reference to this anywhere.

Is my memory faulty? If not, does anyone here have links to any story about this?

Thanks in advance. I'm going to go bang my head a while.

[IdaBriggs]

1. Will quotes from the White House website help?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

PRESIDENT BUSH: Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

[WilliamPitt]

2. That's focused on Iraq

Their original res wanted "and the region" in the text. That casts a much wider net.

[blogslut]

3. is it this?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

[WilliamPitt]

4. *bang bang bang*

That's the *final* version.

The first draft authorized attacks against Iraq "and the region."

My memory has Byrd striking "and the region."

I can't find any reference to this, however.

[blogslut]

10. maybe this?

pdf warning

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107.pdf

[mike_c]

5. that is the text of the IWR that was passed...

...by both houses of Congress.

[JHB]

6. My recollection was that those words stood.

...but I'll see if I can turn up anything more solid (no promises yet).

[WilliamPitt]

7. They didn't

If you read the res, those words are not there.

[JHB]

16. Thanks for the correction.

See my link below, to Byrd's testimony during the debate (if you don't have that already)

[Shrek]

8. Is this close to what you're looking for?

From the Congressional Record. This is Biden, not Byrd talking:

I am among those who had serious reservations about and flat out
straight opposition to the first draft proposed by the White House on
September 19. It was much too broad. The draft raised more questions
than it answered. It was not clear whether the authorization requested
by the President to use force was limited to Iraq or applicable to the
region as a whole.

There's more at the link.

[myrna minx]

9. Senator Dayton's office may be of some help.

Senator Dayton was the only Senator who stayed behind for Senator Byrd to give his impassioned speech.

[Darkhawk32]

11. So it was a Senate version of the bill? n/t

[hlthe2b]

12. I don't have access to Lexus-Nexus.... but seems that

it would be likely to have this info...

Can you access through Truthout or maybe a university, Will?

[Horse with no Name]

13. Don't tell me I am a better "googler" than WillPitt

I'll call you a liar. However, I think I am just lucky.

Here you go(please pardon the source):
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64005,00.html

The original version proposed to Congress by the White House read:

"The president is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate including force in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions referenced above; defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and restore international peace and security in the region."

The most significant change in the wording of the passage -- which critics had called too broad -- was to limit the president's authority to act "in the region" to the authority granted by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

[WilliamPitt]

15. You are my God

[Horse with no Name]

18. Ah think Ah have the vapors

:rofl:

[blm]

17. It was Bush's way of opening the door to Iran and Syria but Dems

working on negotiations at the time forced Iran and Syria off the table altogether as part of their conditional support.

The media won't present what went down to the greater public because it was important to Rove to make it appear that Dems gave Bush everything he wanted so they could spin that storyline before the 2002 election.

[JHB]

14. Here's something to check, if you haven't already, and follow up

Sen. Robert Byrd: This is Another Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0210a/iraqdebate3.html

"...Against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region."

What a broad grant of naked power. To whom? One person, the President of the United States. This Constitution itself refutes -- it refutes -- this resolution right on its face.

Lots more

[WilliamPitt]

20. Perfect

Thank you.

[welshTerrier2]

19. here's a link to the ORIGINAL bill (9/19/2002)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r107:16:./temp/~r107z20O13::">click here for original Iraq War Resolution

it contained the following authorizing language ... (Note: this Original bill never made it to the Senate floor for a vote.)

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
The President is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region.

the final bill contained the following much narrower authorizing language:

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.

[WilliamPitt]

21. THANKS, EVERYONE

The stuff you posted was HUGELY helpful.

:toast: