General Discussion

SOS

(7,048 posts)

194. IWR text Section 3:

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:58 PM

Dec 2011

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.

Bush was authorized by the IWR to invade Iraq.
Section 3 authorizes the use of the Armed Forces as the President
determines to be necessary.

Senator Byrd was right.
From the NYT, October 10, 2002

"Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels "is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/10/opinion/congress-must-resist-the-rush-to-war.html

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

234 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This message was self-deleted by its author [View all] DeathToTheOil Dec 2011 OP

But the gin-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay was really sorry later gratuitous Dec 2011 #1

He never changed his position, and what prejudice? inademv Dec 2011 #3

Hitchens was an outspoken atheist. Atheists are prejudiced, apparently... SidDithers Dec 2011 #13

Poor baby gratuitous Dec 2011 #58

There's that Christian spirit we all know and love...nt SidDithers Dec 2011 #62

I'm not a Christian... well not for 45 years now, but I agree with those upthread. He was a bigot. TalkingDog Dec 2011 #72

Don't confuse the issue with facts gratuitous Dec 2011 #73

I really hate to ask, Lunacee2012 Dec 2011 #88

He spoke quite vehemently about the importance of empowering women inademv Dec 2011 #94

Mostly from his own mouth gratuitous Dec 2011 #112

What misogynist divel? inademv Dec 2011 #134

Sorry, I gave you too much credit gratuitous Dec 2011 #136

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #137

Typical. Shoe Horn Dec 2011 #213

Really? gratuitous Dec 2011 #231

Thank you, he made the same mistake with Christians liberalhistorian Dec 2011 #193

Real Christians are great. dotymed Dec 2011 #218

This message was self-deleted by its author 12AngryBorneoWildmen Dec 2011 #223

The truth, it hoits! AlbertCat Dec 2011 #160

Christians are a much-insulted minority? UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #66

No, atheists are a much-insulted minority... SidDithers Dec 2011 #68

+1 sarcasmo Dec 2011 #152

Let's face it. Theists and atheists insult each other all the time caseymoz Dec 2011 #203

I guess it's like forgivng Osama bin Laden demosincebirth Dec 2011 #5

Popinjay? Good one! n/t Peregrine Took Dec 2011 #85

Steal from the best, I say gratuitous Dec 2011 #86

Maybe you should learn more about Hitchens' actual position and his actual works in his life inademv Dec 2011 #2

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #18

Because he was cognizant of history inademv Dec 2011 #46

Right. Wrong for Saddam to kill Iraqis when we could do it instead. aquart Dec 2011 #63

Yes, and that's utter nonsense. Hissyspit Dec 2011 #156

You mean like in '07 where he was whining that we weren't killing enough Muslims? Posteritatis Dec 2011 #22

How about a quote instead of pulling things from your arse n/t inademv Dec 2011 #41

Tell us please. ForgoTheConsequence Dec 2011 #37

What are you trying to use that quote to say? inademv Dec 2011 #48

Apologize for him all you want. UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #69

Not re-writting what you don't know inademv Dec 2011 #75

Hitch was one of the few people who volunteered to be waterboarded LynneSin Dec 2011 #4

did he renounce its use? i heard he didn't. roguevalley Dec 2011 #23

Oh he wrote about it in Vanity Fair LynneSin Dec 2011 #38

You heard that? July Dec 2011 #101

This message was self-deleted by its author Bucky Dec 2011 #108

A simple google search gave me this... Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #131

So what? He was still dogshit. JVS Dec 2011 #39

Is your comment because he was an atheist? n/t RebelOne Dec 2011 #64

No, does being an atheist excuse him for being dogshit? JVS Dec 2011 #151

Of course it does. Critters2 Dec 2011 #182

Do you piss on everyone's graves or just those that knew how to use the English language properly? truebrit71 Dec 2011 #219

You can't compare that silly stunt to actual waterboarding CrawlingChaos Dec 2011 #172

No you can't, even I know that LynneSin Dec 2011 #183

I remember reading that column. AngryOldDem Dec 2011 #210

Thats absurd. Hitchens had no political power or significant influence. phleshdef Dec 2011 #6

an internationally known writer has no influence? really? roguevalley Dec 2011 #24

Not if you're talking about the Iraq war inademv Dec 2011 #50

IDK let's look at his life Johonny Dec 2011 #54

Yea, friggin really. I didn't stutter. phleshdef Dec 2011 #61

His voice could barely be heard over Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al paparush Dec 2011 #148

Sorry, but that is just wrong CrawlingChaos Dec 2011 #140

Thank you for that read, thucythucy Dec 2011 #181

Not sure I really want to jump into this fray, but... kag Dec 2011 #162

Pitiful. kentuck Dec 2011 #7

In the end, he became a neo-con, many of whom claimed to be converts from the Left. Romulox Dec 2011 #8

How exactly was he a neo-con inademv Dec 2011 #51

Here's some extreme bloodlust from Hitchens cpwm17 Dec 2011 #166

I can see how you would get that impression from reading an evaluation by someone who listen to him inademv Dec 2011 #169

He was. He had my attention until he turned right wing. That pissed me off. nt Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #9

he is like too many idiots. he lived at the extremes of left and right and mocked nuance roguevalley Dec 2011 #27

I sometimes think he switched because it allowed him to make more money. I don't know. nt Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #34

That's what someone who had been close friends with him said deutsey Dec 2011 #45

Wouldn't surprise me at all. nt Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #49

Quote/link? Which friend, I'm genuinely curious n/t inademv Dec 2011 #52

As I say, it was on KPFA's "Letters and Politics" deutsey Dec 2011 #71

Ah, Bob Baldock inademv Dec 2011 #81

I only know him as a voice in between shows, honestly deutsey Dec 2011 #82

looks like someone is itching for a fight. rurallib Dec 2011 #10

And Kim Jon Ill did vastly more damage to the entirety of the North Korean peoples. DFab420 Dec 2011 #11

Yea and what kind of liberals accuse writers of crimes against humanity over writing about opinions? phleshdef Dec 2011 #15

True, but the OP was about consequences for America eridani Dec 2011 #125

And Kim Jon Ill did vastly more damage to the entirety of the North Korean peoples. AlbertCat Dec 2011 #163

Colin Powell did it almost all on his own quinnox Dec 2011 #12

Yeah, that was ...something... Lunacee2012 Dec 2011 #90

I never did. He was always a careerist/opportunitst. His role in tblue37 Dec 2011 #173

I think the 29 Senate Democrats who voted to allow Bush to go to war deserve greater condemnation. MNBrewer Dec 2011 #14

Christopher Hitchens doesn't deserve any condemnation over it at all. phleshdef Dec 2011 #17

humanitarian reasoning for war?? roguevalley Dec 2011 #30

Yea. I also said he was very misguided about that. phleshdef Dec 2011 #59

Ending the sanctions. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #189

How exactly do you feel that he was wrong on his area of support for the war? inademv Dec 2011 #53

He believed it was a fight worth having for various reasons. I see his reasons, but I don't believe phleshdef Dec 2011 #65

His support for the war was for the removal of Saddam, not the occupation inademv Dec 2011 #70

No. I heard and read Hitchens argue in favor of continued fighting in Iraq post saddam. phleshdef Dec 2011 #77

So do you find it more morally acceptable inademv Dec 2011 #78

Yes. I do. phleshdef Dec 2011 #83

"we have a moral obligation to do right by the societies we upheave" inademv Dec 2011 #89

I never said we didn't have a responsibility to do something. phleshdef Dec 2011 #92

So how is it morally acceptable to have left Saddam in power? inademv Dec 2011 #96

Wait for something like an Arab Spring to occur and treat it with a similar fashion as we did Egypt. phleshdef Dec 2011 #106

Well we were having a debate about it, if you don't care to continue that then that is unfortunate inademv Dec 2011 #109

Does that mean we should take out Saudi Arabia? Rozlee Dec 2011 #124

Thank you, Rozlee polly7 Dec 2011 #129

"Saddam was a secular leader for all his brutality" inademv Dec 2011 #130

Saddam was considered secular by the west Rozlee Dec 2011 #153

Yeah Hitler was totally secular too man </sarcasm> inademv Dec 2011 #165

Yes. If you've noticed Egypt and Tunisia lately, you'd easily see-- eridani Dec 2011 #126

Halabja poison gas attack inademv Dec 2011 #132

Nowhere near as many casualties as the US invasion eridani Dec 2011 #155

Arguing from hindsight doesn't make or support your case n/t inademv Dec 2011 #164

It certainly does, as most of the consequences were predicted in advance eridani Dec 2011 #168

If someone trashed your house, would you want to hire them to rebuild? eridani Dec 2011 #123

Sort of, yes. I'd expect them to supply the resources one way or another. phleshdef Dec 2011 #147

It was not possible to remove Saddam without becoming an occupier MNBrewer Dec 2011 #104

So we're doing the wrong thing in Libya? n/t inademv Dec 2011 #107

The two situations are nothing alike. MNBrewer Dec 2011 #111

They are very analygous inademv Dec 2011 #135

No, they dont deserve ANY condemnation. There was nothing wrong with that vote as I explained here stevenleser Dec 2011 #55

Actually I'm pretty sure they do inademv Dec 2011 #74

Nope, they don't. The IWR authorized war only if UN Resolutions were not followed. At the time IWR stevenleser Dec 2011 #87

So wait, because they voted to go to war before the inspection was complete they get a pass? n/t inademv Dec 2011 #91

Which makes sense if you remember the conditions under which the IWR was created stevenleser Dec 2011 #114

No level of weapontry they had or could get in a small timeframe would have been a threat to inademv Dec 2011 #133

That was my guess in 2002 too, but it was a guess. It was the UN stevenleser Dec 2011 #197

They knew they were giving Bush the green light to invade MNBrewer Dec 2011 #105

Nope, they didnt and the IWR was not written as a green light. nt stevenleser Dec 2011 #115

yes, they did MNBrewer Dec 2011 #120

The wording is right in the resolution. You ignore it because it proves you incorrect. nt stevenleser Dec 2011 #122

IWR text Section 3: SOS Dec 2011 #194

keep bolding. "in order to... defend the us.. and enforce UN resolutions stevenleser Dec 2011 #200

Will gladly continue bolding SOS Dec 2011 #228

I didn't know about the Lunacee2012 Dec 2011 #192

we hardly needed Hitchen's war cheerleading to get us mired in Iraq... hlthe2b Dec 2011 #16

Talk about over the top sharp_stick Dec 2011 #19

I don't think he would take credit for that war. And it wouldn't be false modesty. immoderate Dec 2011 #20

On the one hand, I understand it, he hated religious zealotry particularly as the ruling order of a stevenleser Dec 2011 #57

Agreed. He was zealously anti-theocratic. But it's not an excuse. immoderate Dec 2011 #80

Weak. Very weak. MineralMan Dec 2011 #21

You are BENDING OVER BACKWARDS TO MISS THE GODDAMN POINT! DeathToTheOil Dec 2011 #25

ok, that just shows your comparison is even dumber quinnox Dec 2011 #28

Dumber? How does one get any dumber than the Hitchensia? DeathToTheOil Dec 2011 #31

"Did Kim Jong Il vehemently argue for your invasion of Iraq?" quinnox Dec 2011 #33

Yeah, well...welcome to DU to YOU, too.... MADem Dec 2011 #44

i blame bu$h* and cheney.....hitchens is just a reporters opinion. spanone Dec 2011 #26

lol -- I don't think Hitchens support was a deciding factor fishwax Dec 2011 #29

North Korea's role in nuclear proliferation (and thus global destablization) Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #32

Most Americans have no clue who Hitchens was.. trumad Dec 2011 #35

Kim was also a better golfer. JVS Dec 2011 #36

I agree surfdog Dec 2011 #40

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #42

Yeah, ya think? frazzled Dec 2011 #56

Wow! Spazito Dec 2011 #43

None whatsoever is vastly more? dmallind Dec 2011 #47

Sheer, bloodcurdling FAIL. nt Dreamer Tatum Dec 2011 #60

Hitchens went after Kissinger which no one else did lunatica Dec 2011 #67

“Sometimes people are good, and they do just what they should. But the very same people... Ian David Dec 2011 #76

One more Book spirit of wine Dec 2011 #79

I thought he covered it well enough in Hitch-22 n/t inademv Dec 2011 #93

So much fail I don't even know where to start. Both death tallies are zero, LadyHawkAZ Dec 2011 #84

Whether Hitchens was for or against the Iraq war made no fucking difference Burma Jones Dec 2011 #95

Always good to read opinions that have null value here. GoneOffShore Dec 2011 #97

Christopher Hitchens worked for The Pentagon? Throd Dec 2011 #98

The No. 1 cheerleading chickenhawk? LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #99

limbaugh and sons, with 1000 coordinated radio stations and paid callers, endorsed by our universiti certainot Dec 2011 #119

And by the way.. LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #100

What a load of crap. Deep13 Dec 2011 #102

So... Only American lives matter? Ohio Joe Dec 2011 #103

He can't. Ms. Toad Dec 2011 #113

The US government chose to go to war without any input from Hitchens. ChadwickHenryWard Dec 2011 #110

no one heard hitchens compared to team limbaugh, the real chickenhawk cheerleaders for iraq attack certainot Dec 2011 #116

RIP unrec RZM Dec 2011 #117

Hitchens did NO damage, he just talked..... djean111 Dec 2011 #118

wrong, wrong, wrong CrawlingChaos Dec 2011 #143

I read that yesterday...... djean111 Dec 2011 #158

I could have posted a number of other links CrawlingChaos Dec 2011 #178

And if Obama loses because enough people on the left stay home next year RZM Dec 2011 #199

LOL....one of the least informed OPs I have seen this month. n-t Logical Dec 2011 #121

I agree up to the "this month" part. great white snark Dec 2011 #127

Where does Dan Savage fall on this scale? cemaphonic Dec 2011 #128

With all due respect, your statement is utterly absurd. Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #138

Oh god, here we go again... Taverner Dec 2011 #139

Hitchens was wrong like so many in his assessment of the Iraq war, however, he did not vote or make Pisces Dec 2011 #141

indeed...nt and-justice-for-all Dec 2011 #146

I Would Forget About Christopher Hitchens' Iraq War Comments. AlBratt Dec 2011 #142

Hitchens had a tart tongue and was 100% wrong about the war, but was often right on issues REP Dec 2011 #144

I disagree with the OP title, what a pile of shit that is... and-justice-for-all Dec 2011 #145

So *, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. played no part in taking us to war? laconicsax Dec 2011 #149

Actually, Dick Cheney was the #1 chickenhawk. Iggo Dec 2011 #150

Hitch was wrong on many things...but got this one right knocklindquist Dec 2011 #154

72% of Americans opposed Bush's idiotic invasion, SOS Dec 2011 #196

support on DU for the horrid Libya invasion refutes you stockholmer Dec 2011 #211

Before that, he was a notable spokesman for left Jack Rabbit Dec 2011 #157

Yeah Hitchens was a useless fascist, neocon warmongering piece of shit ButterflyBlood Dec 2011 #159

"Hitch" was the #1 cheerleading chickenhawk for the Iraq War. AlbertCat Dec 2011 #161

Hitchens was an ass spooked911 Dec 2011 #167

Let it die, folks, DTTO has been evicted from the thread by virtue of two hidden posts. n/t Ms. Toad Dec 2011 #170

Hitch chose Obama questforpatriots Dec 2011 #171

It almost makes me regret voting for him... ( n/t ) Make7 Dec 2011 #174

I like Hitchens the same way I like Trey Parker and Matt Stone...... SleeplessinSoCal Dec 2011 #175

Are you saying that if there had been no Hitchens skepticscott Dec 2011 #176

Nonsense post. Where did anyone say that? (n/t) CrawlingChaos Dec 2011 #179

The war was inevitable, whether Hitchens had said a word about it skepticscott Dec 2011 #184

re-worded nonsense is still nonsense CrawlingChaos Dec 2011 #187

Hitch wasn't all bad. questforpatriots Dec 2011 #177

This thread is going to inspire a lot of jury duty... n/t Mojambo Dec 2011 #180

How many legions had Hitchens? Survivoreesta Dec 2011 #185

More than Bush, Cheney, or Powell? beardown Dec 2011 #186

What point could you possibly be trying to make with this thread? shoutinfreud Dec 2011 #188

He got that one wrong. Jester Messiah Dec 2011 #190

So he was wrong. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #191

Shitty thread; stupid premise; non-sensical comparison. AmericaIsGreat Dec 2011 #195

bon Jovi did more damage than both of them put together Enrique Dec 2011 #198

Has anyone made a comparison to the Nazi's yet? BootinUp Dec 2011 #201

+1000!! nt Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #202

Why would it occur to you to compare those two? caseymoz Dec 2011 #204

This thread belongs on Jim Robinson's MB intaglio Dec 2011 #205

Yes, he knew he could be wrong . . . caseymoz Dec 2011 #227

Wow! HowHeThinks Dec 2011 #206

interesting is`t it. madrchsod Dec 2011 #208

Obviously, there's no factual support for the claim. None whatsoever. AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2011 #207

Just a wee bit over the top. AngryOldDem Dec 2011 #209

What a fucking joke RetroLounge Dec 2011 #212

indeed. TZ Dec 2011 #214

Amen...a fucking joke Stuckinthebush Dec 2011 #222

Has Hitchens even been buried yet? sulphurdunn Dec 2011 #215

That's it? That's all you've got? deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #216

Religion and our thirst for oil have done VASTLY more damage ... sarchasm Dec 2011 #217

This post hurts my head Stuckinthebush Dec 2011 #220

He was the #1 cheerleader? Do you not get Fox news where you live? truebrit71 Dec 2011 #221

These threads are handy since we can see the recs. ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #224

And a list of those whose own rigid dogma LanternWaste Dec 2011 #232

No one in this thread is rationalizing war. ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #233

I imagine we all of us see what we want to... LanternWaste Dec 2011 #234

Welcome to DU. redqueen Dec 2011 #225

Is it opposites day? Chan790 Dec 2011 #226

No one is 100% right all the time... kentuck Dec 2011 #229

This is the most ridiculous post I have ever seen on DU... ingac70 Dec 2011 #230