Help me out here.

[shadowlight]

I just read the Iraq war resolution
http://yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686
Sounds pretty scary. In the context it is written, I may have voted for it.
But I don't think I would have been voting for war, rather, I think I would have been voting for more international and UN pressure on Iraq.
Comments?

[seabeyond]

1. throw in 9/11 just a year before, and election 2002 and bush

popularity and the fear in the nation and the willing acceptance of patriot act.......

that was a whole other time.

and yes, i remember it like what you read

[elfin]

2. I would have voted for more pressure

in the climate of 9/11 and unfortunately would have trusted the prez. to exert that pressure BEFORE using the "authority" to go further. A beautiful trap given the times and the funneled intel.

However, I would hope that I, as a public servant, would have cried foul when they invaded before exhausting all other avenues.

[shadowlight]

3. So why do Dem's

keep getting accused of voting for war.
They didn't, they voted for the resolution.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. Because they are plain and simple, ignorant.

Great research by the way, it is always nice to see someone educating themselves with facts.

Welcome To DU!

:toast:

[PassingFair]

6. Correction: Most dems voted AGAINST the IWR.

126 - 81 majority in the house
Majority of SITTING senators in congress.

Most voted NO

[MH1]

5. You are correct.

Especially since a day or two before the vote, Bush gave a big speech emphasizing that this was not a vote for war, that he would go through the appropriate diplomatic actions and the UN and build a coalition...yada yada, just like the words say.

Many people criticize Dems who voted yes, saying that of course they already "knew" Bush was a liar and shouldn't have "trusted" him on this. But remember that at the time, the rest of the country was still mostly behind Bush, even if they questioned whether we should attack Iraq - but again, it was framed as pressure on the regime, not a blank check to go to war.

Had a lot more Dems voted against it, I predict that it still would have passed (there are a few hawk dems, remember), but the weak passage would have been used to blame Dems later when Saddam allegedly failed to cooperate with inspectors. The fact that Saddam did cooperate would be just as irrelevant in this version of history, as it was in the real version - Bush just claimed Saddam wasn't cooperating, yanked the inspectors and invaded anyway. Only in this version, the lack of cooperation would be blamed on the "weak" support shown for Bush by the, oh let's say, 50-48 passage of IWR. Then the "need" for the Iraq war could even be laid at the Dems feet, and we'd be worse off then we are today. Because today Bush CAN'T blame Dems for Saddam's non-cooperation, because he got a strong 'yes' vote - to pursue all diplomatic alternatives first.

In the real version of history, it was Bush and Bush alone who started the Iraq War. In the version as some would like to rewrite it, they would have an argument to blame the Dems too. A specious argument to be sure, but I bet it would have flown.

[shadowlight]

7. Thanks for your helpful reply.

But I still don't understand why Dem's get accused of "voting for war".

[mazzarro]

8. I would NOT have voted for it

If you read it carefully you will know that a lot of the claims made of Iraq as continuing to posses WMD, or of harboring Al Qaida members were called into question before the resolution was passed by people like Scott Ritter and others. It was just that these people were deliberately sidelined and called all sorts of urgly names. Any decent person who took the time to cull up the relevant information and listen to more than one source for more information, had good indications that most of the alarms were being inflated.

[TahitiNut]

9. Only Section 3 has the (unconstitutional) force of law.

No "whereas" has the slightest effect on law. Section 1 is merely the title, but it's ominous: "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." Section 2 is "sunshine up the butt" in that it merely cheers on some mythical "efforts by the President" that we know were mere window-dressing - a subterfuge. Section 3 has the core of the unconstitutional (per the unconstitutional War Powers Resolution of 1973) abdication of Congress' exclusive responsibility to declare war.

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.

That's really all there is. Items (1) and (2) are ineffective limits in that they don't even put boundaries on the area or territory in which such force is authorized. Conceivably, Junior could invade Syria and sy it was "necessary and appropriate." After all, he's the sole designated determiner of 'necessary and appropriate'!! The rest is window dressing. Section 4 is unenforced and (in effect) unenforceable.