the Iraq War Resolution WAS a vote for war....

[mike_c]

The number of folks still holding out for the view that congress men and women who voted for the Iraq War Resolution "weren't voting for war" is rather shocking. Reading those comments, it occurs to me that even three years later many DUers are not really familiar with the IWR or what authority it explicitly granted Bush. Let's take a few moments and review the IWR. It is reprinted in its entirety below-- don't worry, it's short-- with comments interspersed. I'm going to post this to my journal so that it will be accessible later.

Let me first remind you that under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 the congressional "authority to use force" is an explicit substitute for a Declaration of War, giving the president sole authority to go to war. That's really the crux of the matter, since the IWR is just such an "authorization to use force." Some have argued that this abdication of congressional responsibility is unconstitutional, but every Executive since Nixon has argued that it isn't, and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the matter-- nor has the law been challenged, so that argument is not particularly relevant.

Now on to the IWR:

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

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 Qaeda, 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,

This first part is noteworthy for at least two reasons. First, it lays out the rationale underlying the resolution itself and for the actions that will be called for in the next section. It expresses Congress' agreement that Iraq possessed a stockpile of WMDs and an active WMD research and development program (including "an advanced nuclear weapons development program"), that Iraq was responsible for the withdrawal of UNSCOM inspectors in 1998, that Iraq was an immediate threat to the United States, that Iraq was associated with al-Qaeda, that the U.S. had done everything necessary to achieve a diplomatic settlement and that no further diplomatic actions were warranted, and that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Every congress man and woman who voted for the IWR tacitly accepted those statements as true-- their vote was an affirmation of that acceptance. Those statements are the logical foundations for the remainder of the resolution.

The second noteworthy thing about that first part is that it requires no further action from the president or anyone else. It is simply a statement of congressional acceptance of the circumstances it enumerates. Nowhere does it call on the executive to provide any evidence of these circumstances-- just the opposite, it says "we already believe these things to be true enough to serve as the foundation for giving the president war powers under the WPR of 1973."

The second part of the IWR is the actual congressional brief to the president, including the all important authority for the use of force. Remember, under the WPR of 1973 this is tantamount to a declaration of war-- it carries exactly the same authority to make war, and explicitly conveys that authority to the president. Many Americans don't realize this, but only the most woefully ignorant congress man or woman with the most incompetent staff would be unaware of the gravity of such an authorization. Here we go:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

This requires no further comment. Section 1 is simply the title of the Act.

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.

Section 2 is often interpreted as a requirement for further diplomacy instead of invasion, but read it again carefully. All Section 2 does is thank the president for having done so in the past. It expresses congressional support for his efforts, but does not call on him to perform anything further. Not one thing. It does not say "the President shall..." or "in the event of the failure of negotiations such and such...." There are no conditional statements at all. None. No further action is required by Section 2. This is critical, because if any action were required the IWR would not be an unconditional congressional authorization to use force under the WPR, as referenced further in Section 3 below. Bush would likely have had to go back to Congress for that authorization if conditions had been attached to the IWR, but none were, so the point is moot.

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.

Section 3 is the meat of the resolution, and ultimately the only part that really counts for anything.

First, it explicitly gives the president authority to use force under the WPR of 1973. With that authority Bush obtained sole and complete discretion regarding when and if to invade. More to the point, that authorization was an explicit substitute for a declaration of war. Section 3(a)(1-2) is in fact an authorization for war, and every member of congress knew it. If you doubt this, read the War Powers Resolution of 1973, or even just a summary of it. Wikipedia has a good one.

Section 3(b) is the only section in the IWR that explicitly requires anything from the president. It requires that he notify congress of his determination within 48 hours of invading Iraq. It specifically does not require him to prove anything, or do anything other than notify Congress of the invasion in writing. It even tells him what to say in his letter of notification, and requires only that "he determine" such an invasion to be necessary. In fact, when Bush notified Congress shortly after U.S. troops invaded Iraq, he simply quoted Section 3(b)(1-2). That's all Section 3 required of him.

Section 3(c) is boilerplate that states explicitly that the IWR was meant by Congress to meet the statutory requirements of an authorization to use force under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This should remove any lingering doubts about whether members of congress-- including democratic members-- knew they were voting whether or not to go to war. As we've already discussed, such an authorization is the literal equivalent to a congressional declaration of war.

Finally:

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.

Section 4 is the only other section that requires anything of Bush, but it gives him an out. Sec. 4(a) requires periodic reports to Congress on the progress of the war. This would normally give Congress an opportunity to pursue questions and oversight, but Sec. 4(b) permits the Executive (with whom war power is now vested) to skip the periodic reports and submit a single consolidated report. Unfortunately, it does not specify WHEN such a report is due. Presumably, whomever is president at the end of the war against Iraq will be called upon to submit a report on the outcome of the war, but that's ALL Sec. 4 ends up requiring.

So to summarize, the IWR first expresses Congress' full and unreserved agreement with the entire boat-load of lies the administration floated about Iraq, then it conveys congressional authority to use force against Iraq pursuant with the War Powers Resolution, an authority that was the functional equivalent of a full declaration of war. Finally, it places absolutely no conditions upon that authorization other than a letter of notification within 48 hours of invading, and even states that the letter need only say that Bush has determined an invasion to be necessary.

This isn't the USA PATRIOT Act or the budget resolution. It isn't long and unreadable. It is brutally brief actually-- only Section 3 really means anything. The rest is boilerplate. I hope it's clear to everyone now that a vote for this resolution was an explicit vote for a war against Iraq. Under the War Powers Resolution it could not have been anything else.

[wuushew]

1. kick

:kick:

[pocoloco]

2. It took you 3 years to figure that out???

[mike_c]

5. no, I've known that from the beginning-- this was in response to...

...recent threads in which DUers continued the tired argument that a vote for the IWR was not really a vote for war against Iraq. That argument is offered as political cover for dems who voted for the IWR, which rather ignores the motives of dems who voted against it, of course.

Plus, I really think 90 percent of the folks making statements about the IWR have never actually read it. So here it is, in all of its obscene glory.

[nonconformist]

3. K & R. nt

[Dhalgren]

4. Thank you for explaining this so clearly and concisely. A very

good job. Not only did many Democrats vote for this obscene resolution, but they lied to us about it afterward. Inexcusable. This is without doubt the lowest ebb of our national history - and the Democrats in congress (except for a brave and paltry few) share in the guilt. We need a new government, aisle to aisle, top to bottom...


Recommended - highly!

[cantstandbush]

20. Everyone of those who voted for the war should resign or lose next

election...and that includes all Rethugs.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

6. Very simple. K&R

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[global1]

7. Does This Give * Any Right To Invade Iran? .......

I know it specifically says Iraq - but could * somehow use this to justify going into Iran without going back to Congress for approval?

[mike_c]

9. I don't see how....

What I expect is one of two things. First, that Bush seeks a similar authorization for force against Iran. That is consistent with the PR campaign the administration is running, but I don't think they're really trying hard enough. My money's on the second scenario, which is that the administration will argue that Congress has given tacit approval for a preemptive war strategy (or that congressional approval isn't required anyway), and that provides cover to attack Iran whenever Bush wants to. The real question then becomes what he does under the War Powers Resolution afterward. Under the WPR, the president must obtain either a declaration of war or congressional authority to use force-- they're functionally equivalent-- within 60 days of initiating hostilities or he must withdraw American troops. I suspect that if Bush invades Iran and then asks Congress for permission to continue the war beyond the 60 day limit Congress will trample it's weakest members in the stampede to lick his boots and comply.

[GreenArrow]

37. I believe it does

from Sec.3

***(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.***

It seems that they would simply need to link Iran to international terrorism, and/or blame them in particular for 9-11. Bush would simply need to make a "determination" that this was the case, and viola -- Sea of Glass!

[mike_c]

39. that troubled me too...

...and gave me some pause. Ultimately, I'm relying on the language in 3(a) which specifically limits the authority to use force to 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.

As I understand the War Powers Resolution, this is essentially congress giving approval for a war against Iraq in advance of the actual invasion (recall that the WPR has mechanisms for approval after the fact, too), but limits the extent of that pre-approval to Iraq.

In the end however, the WPR itself gives Bush a means for obtaining congressional approval to invade Iran within 60 days of doing so, and it's really hard to imagine this Congress witholding that authorization, given their utter compliance regarding Iraq.

[GreenArrow]

40. you're probably right

If I were going to speculate, I'd assume that Bush et al would offer a new Resolution dealing specifically with Iran, and if that were to meet with resistance (unlikely) would fall back on that clause in the IWR.

Excelent original post, BTW. The amount of denial and rationalizing around this issue is simply astonishing.

[politicasista]

8. It would be nice if we would put our blame and anger where it lies...

instead of letting the warmongering criminal off the hook. It would save our sanity. I think.

[mike_c]

10. where exactly is "the hook...?"

Arguably, the IWR even mitigates the charge that Bush lied to Congress, at least to some extent, because its preamble states that Congress agreed with him on every point. Seriously, the IWR is an absolutely monsterous document. It's a carte-blanche for war and a get-out-of-jail-free card.

I think it's disingenuous to suggest that Congress doesn't bear any responsibility for the Iraq war-- the IWR gives Bush tremendous legal and political cover. I think everyone who voted for it betrayed their country, and that includes both sides of the aisle.

[sandnsea]

11. It is NOT a literal equivalent to a declaration of war

Because of these specific words:

The President must determine:

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

Certainly it authorizes war, IF those determinations ARE NOT met. It is NOT a Declaration of War because it requires continued diplomatic means.

And every single blessed time you say it's the same as a Declaration of War, you let Bush off the hook for HIS OWN WORDS that war was avoidable and he had no intention of going to war when the DSM proves he did.

After all this time it is incredible to me that people STILL refuse to understand that this IWR required a peace process that Bush did not live up to. A Declaration of War doesn't do that.

[mike_c]

12. have you read the War Powers Resolution that makes this beast work...?

Here is the relevant section (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm):

SEC. 5(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.

(emphasis added)

There is NO functional distinction in the WPR between a declaration of war and a congressional authorization of force. This was originally meant to resolve the "apparent" constitutional contradiction between congressional authority to declare war (Art. 1, Sec. 8) and presidential authority as commander and chief of the military (Art. 2, Sec. 2)-- instead it became a loophole in congressional responsibility big enough to drive a tank through.

As for your comment about whether or not those "determinations" must be "met," read the IWR Sec 3 again:

(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.

(emphasis added)

Section 3(a) gives Bush the authorization, period. Under the War Powers Resolution this is the functional equivalent of a declaration of war. Read the escerpt above and the rest of the WPR if you don't believe that. On the other hand, the alternative is to suggest that Bush started a war without congressional authorization, in violation of the War Powers Resolution. It's not true, but just for the sake of argument, if he did, why hasn't Congress done it's duty and impeached him for that?

(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.

(emphasis added)

This is the part you referenced. Note that it says "the president shall make available... his determination that...." The only thing he is required to make available is his determination. No proof, nothing else. In fact, when the U.S. invaded Iraq Bush sent the following letter to Congress:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President)

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

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

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

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

All he had to say was "I determine that..." and quote Sec. 3(b)(1-2). Note too that Congress ACCEPTED this letter as fulfilling the ONLY requirement placed on the executive by the IWR.

Back to the text of Sec. 3(b), the ONLY place the words "the president shall..." appear is in reference to informing Congress of "his determination." No further action was required.

Finally:

(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.

Which brings us full circle-- Sec. 3(c) specifically invokes Sec. 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution and makes it clear that the IWR is equivalent to a declaration of war.

Finally, Sec. 4 of the IWR gives Bush a way out of the reporting requirements of the WPR.

I'm not giving Bush cover-- CONGRESS gave him cover with the IWR. It sucks, but there it is.

on edit-- it is a myth that the IWR required any "peace process." In fact, it did no such thing. It REFERS to diplomacy, but never once requires any further efforts in that regard. Not even once. And BTW, you misquoted Sec. 3(b)-- it does NOT say "the president must determine"-- it only says the president must communicate his determination. Those are very different outcomes.

[sandnsea]

13. OR, or or or or or

Jesus motherfucking christ. Words mean something. If declaring war was all that was EVER required to use military force, THAT is what the war powers act would state. It DOESN'T. It says OR. Because they ARE NOT the same thing.

The authorization is specific and you can write a book for all I care, it doesn't change what the thing says. further diplomatic and other peaceful means Bush didn't do that, HE started this goddamned war.

[SOS]

22. Bush was not required to do anything.

The happy talk about UN resolutions and diplomacy and peaceful means are utterly meaningless.

There are only two words in this whole load of BS that mean anything: "his determination"

[mike_c]

26. exactly....

eom

[sandnsea]

48. Yeah, HE went to war

HE said his war talk was bluster and rhetoric. HE said the IWR was not a declaration of war. HE said he had no war plans. HE LIED.

[mike_c]

27. did you stamp your feet when you wrote that...?

:popcorn:

[sandnsea]

49. Beats twisting my brain into a pretzel n/t

[killbotfactory]

14. And anyone who disagreed could have spoken up...

Before Bush invaded. Did anyone who voted for that resolution do that? I don't think so.

[tritsofme]

15. I agree, but to even go further in the line of Bushian thought

You must remember that Nixon vetoed the War Powers Resolution and Congress overrode his veto.

Every executive since Nixon has rejected the War Power Powers resolution as an unconstitutional power grab, and sought more unfettered executive power in war-making.

[Disturbed]

16. Another reminder

IWR

United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent who courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq were:

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota) Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Re
Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Gresham Barrett (R-South Carolina)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
John Duncan, Jr. (R-Tennessee)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
John Hostettler (R-Indiana)
Amo Houghton (R-New York, retired from office)
Jay Inslee (D-Washington)

[glitch]

24. Good reminder. Thanks., nt

[mike_c]

29. that's an excellent point....

The executive branch argues that Art. 2 of the Constitution gives them full authority to wage war no matter what.

[bread_and_roses]

17. Yep. (n/t)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Anyone who claims they didn't see the war coming as a result

of the IWR, is either lying, or irretrievably stupid. In either case they certainly don't deserve to be in positions of power.

[merh]

19. Don't agree with you at all

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.

Section 2 is often interpreted as a requirement for further diplomacy instead of invasion, but read it again carefully. All Section 2 does is thank the president for having done so in the past. It expresses congressional support for his efforts, but does not call on him to perform anything further. Not one thing. It does not say "the President shall..." or "in the event of the failure of negotiations such and such...." There are no conditional statements at all. None. No further action is required by Section 2. This is critical, because if any action were required the IWR would not be an unconditional congressional authorization to use force under the WPR, as referenced further in Section 3 below. Bush would likely have had to go back to Congress for that authorization if conditions had been attached to the IWR, but none were, so the point is moot.

As written, Section 2 is an on going, living condition of the resolution. It does not contain any language that finds that the "diplomatic actions" had ended and/or had failed. The language is as it is, constant, on going - "congress supports the efforts of the President to". It recognizes the efforts of the UN and makes those efforts a part of the considerations relative to action. It does not state "said actions having failed" "said actions are without merit" "said actions are now stalled". It does not allow the president to do as he has done and that is to ignore the UN and ignore international treaties.

Additionally, your comments early on are not valid.

Some have argued that this abdication of congressional responsibility is unconstitutional, but every Executive since Nixon has argued that it isn't, and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the matter-- nor has the law been challenged, so that argument is not particularly relevant.

Just because SCOTUS has failed to rule upon the constitutionality of the WPR of '73 and/or the IRW does not give legitimacy to either resolution. How ironic it is that the neo-cons and conservatives argue that they want strict constitutional interpretation yet they (and you) totally ignore the constition when it comes to how and when wars can be waged by the USA.

[mike_c]

30. the WPR might not be "legitimate," but it remains the law...

...until repealed by Congress or struck down by the courts, neither of which has happened in the 30 years since its enactment. And as for Sec. 2 of the IWR, NO WHERE does it contain the words "the president shall" or their equivalent calling for any future diplomacy. Sec. 2 is meaningless boilerplate meant to convey exactly the impression you received-- that it calls for continuing diplomatic efforts through the U.N.-- but in fact all it does is express Congress' support for any such efforts the president chooses to undertake. But it simply does not REQUIRE him to do anything further. It just doesn't.

[merh]

36. It is the active usage of the word "support"

Supports - a continued activity - congress recognizes that the president "supports" - not that he supported and it didn't work.

Again, nothing in that resolution provides that the president can violate international law or the UN resolutions. Because reference to the UN resolutions is found in section 2 and as the reference to same is active and not passive, the reading of the language conforms to a continuing obligation. IF the UN Resolutions were not important and were not to be considered when acting, they would not have been necessary (and therefore included) in the resolution.

Keep trying, you won't get there for the language of the resolution, but it's a nice try.

And, as stated in my original post, just because no one has brought charges against the president for acting outside or beyond his powers as provided in the constitution, just because he goes beyond the resolutions of congress, does not make his actions legal (e.g. the illegal searches he has admitted to ordering).

Get some balls, demand a strict following of the constitution, just as the neo-cons do, demand that the president be held accountable for his violations of same. Don't go looking for legal loopholes that DO NOT exist.

Not.In.My.Name! :patriot:

[mike_c]

38. agreed, Congress "supports" diplomacy...

...but again, Sec. 2 NEVER places any requirement on Bush for future diplomacy, nor does it make the authority granted in Sec. 3 conditional upon anything at all. You refer to the "language of the resolution," but where in that language do you see any clause saying "the president shall" do anything? It doesn't exist in Sec. 2 except in the wishful imagination of those wanting to excuse Congress for participating in this travesty.

Note too that Sec. 3(a) says "the president IS AUTHORIZED" and Sec. 3(b) refers to the "authority granted in 3(a)" as a done deal-- NOT as conditional authority contingent upon further diplomacy. The only conditions placed on authority for invasion in the whole document are in 3(b) and in Sec. 4, the places where is says "the president shall...," but Sec. 4 undermines itself in 4(b), leaving only 3(b).

The point of all this is that everyone who voted for the IWR shares full responsibility for the war crime of prosecuting an unprovoked war of aggression. Insulting me for pointing that out doesn't change anything.

[merh]

42. But see, you can't approach the issue as "it hasn't been

challenged, therefore it is legal and/or correct". Taking that approach is consistent with the neo-con's/conservative approach that "the president ordered it so it is okay".

We are the ones who must challenge them on their actions, we must hold them accountable for their violations of the constitution and our rights and their oaths of office. In not doing so, in taking your approach that the language has not been challenged, you are conceding defeat and accepting their violations. I won't do that - I won't be an accomplice to their crimes.

The point is the resolution included the active use of the word "support", it does not state that "the support was given and diplomacy having failed", war is a necessity. It is a continuation of the support and the use of diplomacy.

YOU ALSO MISS OUT on the language of Section 3 that is pertinent to the weed's violation of the IWR and the caveat that congress included in the IWR.

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.

There had to be specific findings of the failure and complicity and, as we know now, those findings were based on lies that were manufactured pursuant to the orders of the administration. Congress never anticipated that the administration would lie to justify the military action or war. It just wasn't conceivable. As a matter of fact, it is still so inconceivable that many refuse to see the lies today and refuse to hold the administration responsible for the illegal and immoral war.

[mike_c]

43. I'm sorry merh, I just can't agree....

You're taking 3(b)(1-2) out of context, i.e. reading (1) and (2) without (b). All they do is specify the things Bush has to communicate to Congress within 48 hours of invading Iraq, and 3(b) says that all he actually has to communicate is "his determination" regarding them. See #12 above for comments about 3(b) and for the letter Bush wrote Congress if you don't recall it from immediately after the invasion.

on edit-- I don't understand whether your primary point about approaching the issue as correct because it was untested referred to the IWR or the WPR. I suspect we might be mixing apples and oranges in this discussion (?).

[merh]

44. I am not taking anything out of context.

You have to read the resolution as written, as a full document, each section being a part of the entire document and relating to the purpose of the document. If Congress did not want those sections to be a part of the resolution, they would not be a part.

If they were not important to the meaning and the purpose of the resolution, they would not be included.

And, as stated above, the caveats were included because congress never dreamed that the president would lie to them and the American people.

Two very simple points -- the constitution does not authorize the power that congress gave to the president in this resolution, therefore, the resolution is void. The resolution itself called for diplomacy over force and required that the UN Resolutions be enforced and the UN and international law respected.

Our waging war on a nation that did not attack us or wage war against us is a flagrant violation of the Constitution of the USofA, several resolutions of the UN and international peace treaties that we are a party to.

[oasis]

21. Exhibit A: Downing Street Memo (7/ 23/02).Exhibit B: I.W.R. (10/10/02).

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if the defendant had knowledge of the existence of A, there would have been little or no support for B.

I rest my case.

Edit for spelling.

[ClassWarrior]

23. Tell you what... you stay here and look backwards and point fingers...

...and the rest of us will go on ahead and take back our country, and afterwards we'll all meet over a beer and trade stories. Sound good? :D

NGU.

[mike_c]

31. take back our country from WHOM...?

I include those who voted for an illegal war of aggression against a powerless country as among those we need to retrieve our country FROM.

[ClassWarrior]

34. I agree. You show me the proof that was someone's motive, and I'll be...

...the first to go after them.

NGU.

[Individualist]

25. Yes, it was,

but you'll never get the spinners and apologists to admit it.

[warrior1]

28. How about the

fact of The Downing Street Memo's and that this war/action whatever legal term they want to call it is in fact based on lies? I don't see how now this document can make legal what is in fact that they lied to congress and the world about Iraq danger to the US.

[Individualist]

32. Of course they lied

The only thing we don't know is how many congressmen voted for IWR even though they knew the administration was lying. As noted in post #16, we do know those who were courageous enough to vote against it.

[mike_c]

33. the preamble to the IWR expresses Congress' full participation...

...in those lies. Everyone who voted for this turkey affirmed their agreement that Iraq was building nuclear weapons, had stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, supported al-Qaeda, was involved in 9/11, and so on. It says "whereas Congress finds all these circumstances to be true, it gives the president authority to use military force under the War Powers Resolution." Everyone who voted for the IWR sold their conscience to the neocons, IMO.

[warrior1]

35. Got it.

Thanks.

[ronnie624]

41. Perhaps your excellent post

will put to rest the ridiculous claims that congressional Democrats bear no responsibility for the crimes against Iraq...but I doubt it.

Thank you for your informative and useful post.

[mzmolly]

45. Have YOU read the conditions? The claims Bush made were false.

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 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 members of al Qaeda, 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 the President was full of shit.

The vote was based upon the conditions noted in above (which we know were LIES.) Additionally, WAR was supposed to be a LAST resort - after inspections failed, after attempts at peaceful resolutions had failed. The people who voted yea, did so considering the "circumstances" presented in the resolution.

The war vote was a vote to "disarm" Saddam Hussein - he wasn't armed. It was a vote to remove the nuclear weapons Saddam was stock piling - he didn't have any. And, it was a vote to oust Al Qaida from their protected Iraqi safe havens - which did not exist.

In order to examine what people voted for, we must examine the context - the entire "case for war" was a charade.

[mike_c]

46. oh of course they were false-- utter lies....

That's why their appearance in the preamble to the IWR is so important. In placing them there, Congress stated them as truths, just as the Bush administration was stating them, and every member of Congress who voted for the IWR affirmed his or her tacit acceptance of their truth, even if they knew them to be lies. I'm convinced that many of them did know they were utter whoppers.

But their presence in the preamble of the IWR means that not only was the president full of shit, so was the Congress, EXCEPT for those who voted against the IWR. In doing so THEY affirmed that they did not accept those circumstances as truths.

where·as (hwâr-z, wâr-) conj.

1. It being the fact that; inasmuch as.

[mzmolly]

47. No they did not. They affirmed that under X circumstances they

supported war - as a last resort. The reason the conditions are noted is because they ARE conditions. The congress has stated they did not have access to the same "evidence/intel" the President did, some of them believed Bush.

[mike_c]

50. I edited the prev response to include the definition...

...of "whereas." It means "in statement of fact." It's not a condition to be met-- it's a statement that Congress accepted those lies as truths. Nothing in the preamble to the IWR is a condition.

Finally, Sec. 3(a) gives Bush UNCONDITIONAL authority to use military force against Iraq. War was NOT a "last resort"-- once that authority was granted Congress washed its hands of the matter. Under the War Powers Resolution that authority was tantamount to a declaration of war.

[mzmolly]

52. But, the facts were not "factual" thus the yea was in response to a fairy

tale. Example: "Whereas Peter Pan flies over Bagdhad daily at noon."

The UNCONDITIONAL support was based upon certain 'CONDITIONS' that did not prove true. Thus in my estimation the vote is actually void. Frankly, I think senate/congress should persue that line of reasoning and move to bring the troops home.

The "last resort" mention was based Bush's "word" to members of congress - which WE know means jack shit, but - people who were on the fence were assured of this by * himself.

[mike_c]

55. ok-- I certainly don't argue that any of that pack of lies was truthful...

My contention is that 1) members of Congress who voted for the IWR cooperated fully in the charade, and 2) they knew that under the War Powers Resolution they were authorizing a war of aggression against Iraq.

[mzmolly]

56. We'll have to agree to disagree?

:hi:

[mike_c]

58. ok.... n/t

[ClassWarrior]

51. "I'm convinced that many of them did know they were utter whoppers."

Then prove it. You must have overwhelming evidence to be "convinced."

NGU.

[mike_c]

53. OK-- that's a bit OT, but here are some of my reasons....

First and foremost, Scott Ritter has stated repeatedly that U.S. intelligence knew that Iraq was "fundamentally disarmed" by the early 1990s. You and I had access to that information, so it's hard to imagine that it was somehow concealed from all members of Congress.

Second, Iraq had already agreed to the resumption of UNSCOM inspections (in Sept. 2002) and had provided all of its documentation regarding the dismantling of it's armament programs-- documentation that the U.S. censored before allowing the U.N. to review it. Again, I knew that so it's hard to believe that members of Congress didn't. The fallacious logical trap the Bush administration employed-- "if they say they're disarmed we'll know they're lying"-- was utterly transparent.

Let's see-- much was known in 2002 about the condition of Iraq after more than a decade of brutal economic sanctions. Iraq was not threatening anyone in the region, and was in fact teetering on the edge of social collapse. Again, it's hard to imagine that Congress didn't know this when I did, the U.N. had publicized it for years, heads of the sanctions program had resigned in protest, etc.

Congress certainly knew that UNSCOM inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq in 1998 by Clinton in advance of Operation Desert Fox, and not forced out by Iraq. Again, if I could carry signs in marches stating this during 2002, it's hard to imagine that Congress members were ignorant of the truth.

I'll leave it at that because knowing that the clauses in the preamble were lies is a bit off topic to the question of whether the IWR was understood to be functionally equivalent to a declaration of war. Nonetheless, I am convinced that many in Congress knew fully well that they were prostituting their vote for a war based on a pack of lies. And besides, if they didn't, one has to SERIOUSLY question their fitness for office.

[ClassWarrior]

59. "Knowing that the clauses in the preamble were lies is a bit off topic..."

"...to the question of whether the IWR was understood to be functionally equivalent to a declaration of war??"

Wrong. This is the key to every point you've made in this thread.

Nonetheless, you are still "convinced that many in Congress knew fully well that they were prostituting their vote for a war based on a pack of lies." Again, an extremely damning statement that is wholly irresponsible without solid evidence.

Although, I do wholeheartedly agree that, "if they didn't, one has to SERIOUSLY question their fitness for office." But there I go again looking forward instead of looking backward and pointing fingers.

:shrug:

NGU.

[annabanana]

54. The problem was that no one believed

...that they meant what they said in the small print.

It was like the last page was presented to them for their signature, and they took the assurances that "it would only be used as leverage, to force him to open all sites for inspection". . . and that all that squinty small print was "just boilerplate, nothing to worry about"..

All those f*cking lawyers damn well should have known better.

[mike_c]

57. yep-- when the LAWMAKERS don't pay attention to the fine print...

...we're all in deep do-do. However, I think they knew full well what they were doing, and any who didn't are simply not qualified to remain in office due to incompetence. I mean, the WHOLE reason for the IWR was to meet the requirements of the War Powers Resolution-- Sec. 3(c) states that outright-- so it's expressed purpose was to authorize a war against Iraq. Any member of Congress who didn't understand this does not deserve to be in office, IMO.