The better ? is would Kerry still vote to give DUMBYA the authority

[ProfessorPlum]

to go to war? Knowing what he knows now? (I have to believe that the answer would be no).

I'd be interested in that answer.

[goodhue]

1. the answer is right here . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html

On Friday, Bush challenged Kerry to answer whether he would support the war "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction that U.S. and British officials were certain were there.

In response, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

[ProfessorPlum]

3. Gack

Oh dear, that's not the answer I was looking for. How about "This president has demonstrated he has misused that authority and in retrospect the congress should not have given it to him?" I guess he doesn't want to frame it in any way that the members of Congress were wrong to vote for IWR, but . . .

Can anyone show me that Kerry is framing this debate in a helpful way? I'm not seeing it yet.

I want to believe that he can turn his vote into a plus . . . I surely hope he can.

[emulatorloo]

8. Please Read the REST OF THE ANSWER:

But Mr. Kerry, the Democratic nominee, extended his attack onPresident Bush's prosecution of the war, saying he had not used the Congressional authority effectively.

"My question to President Bush is, Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" Mr. Kerry told reporters here after responding to Mr. Bush's request last week for a yes-or-no answer on how he would vote today on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

"Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?" he said. "Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?"


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/politics/campaign/10kerry.html

[sandnsea]

2. AUTHORITY

There's still way too many people in this country who think this dimwit is a good President and the goal is to convince them Kerry is just as good on terrorism and foreign policy, but better on the economy so they'll swing over.

Giving the President AUTHORITY to do what is necessary to protect the US is always reasonable (considering most Presidents aren't psychotic) and that's what I think he's saying. Saddam was a threat and needed to be confronted and it was going to take the IWR to do that.

The question is would he have invaded in March 2003, either knowing or not knowing what he knows now. I would hope to god he says no.

I don't think this country is as far right as some of Kerry's adivsors seem to think. I hope he's listening to the folks on the campaign trail and clarifies this latest war vote statement.

[ProfessorPlum]

4. Yes, I don't think it would be harmful for Kerry to say

it was a misjudgement on his part to give BUSH that authority (especially knowing what we know now). That would certainly lend credence to his claims of being surprised when the neocons rushed us to war.

I'm not too worried about this issue from a winning-the-election point of view, I guess. Most voters know to hang this mess around Bush's neck, but I wish we could get more comfortable with Kerry's take on all of this.

[sandnsea]

9. He has said that

But like I said, there's still too many people who have that childlike faith in their President and the goodness of the US in general. They won't even understand what Kerry is talking about. I really wish he'd clearly say that going into Iraq in March was wrong because we could have given inspectors more time, like he has in the past. And the war in retrospect was wrong because there were no WMD. I don't care about the stupid vote, I care about the war.

[ProfessorPlum]

11. exactly

well put.

[LittleApple81]

6. But that is not the way that Bush is spinning it. KERRY has to learn

to ANSWER QUESTIONS IN A WAY THAT BENEFITS HIM AND NOT BUSH!!!!

[sandnsea]

12. It puts the war back on Bush

Which is right where it belongs. The pre-war diplomacy, intelligence, planning, all of it. So that part is good. But I do think he's going to have to be clear that he wouldn't have gone to war in March, at the very least. I would think he wouldn't have gone to war at all, knowing there's no WMD. But that let's Bush label him a flip-flopper again, being for war and then against it. I think some of this stuff is the campaign's fault. It's not that hard to explain if they'd stop complicating it themselves.

[emulatorloo]

16. Bush Spin - it is what he does. . .enjoy this take on Bush Spin:

They are lying about what JK said. . .it is pretty much like this:

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17443

[sangh0]

5. The better question is

Why do people think "a vote for IWR was a vote for war" when a vote for IWR was nothing more than "a vote for IWR"?

[goodhue]

7. maybe because W stands for war

maybe because the W in IWR stands for War?

:shrug:

[sangh0]

10. And "R" stands for "Resolution"

:shrug:

[goodhue]

14. And the "I" stands for "Iraq"

So a vote for IWR was a vote to support the Iraqi War Resolution.
A vote against IWR was a vote against the Iraqi War Resolution.
Seems pretty clear to me.

A vote against IWR was a vote against resolve for a war in Iraq.
A vote for IWR was a vote for resolve for a war in Iraq (assuming Iraq didn't come clean about its illusory WMD).

And this was the general understanding at the time.

[sangh0]

18. No, that was not the understanding

but that won't stop you from repeating it. You defend the inaccurate subject line of the OP, and you defend other inaccuracies like "a vote for IWR was a vote for war"

[emulatorloo]

13. I thought the press came up with "IWR" moniker -

don't believe it was actually called that. . .

[goodhue]

17. Good point!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.j.res.00114:

The title of HR 114 was:
"To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq."

[sangh0]

19. You agree, but you still call say

"A vote for IWR is a vote for war" even though it wasn't even named the "Iraqi War Resolution"

[goodhue]

20. okay, it was a vote to use force in Iraq

which sounds like war to me

[sangh0]

21. And why do you say that?

Do you think it was called the "Iraqi Force Resolution"?

[goodhue]

22. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

DOC>



<

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

<

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - >>

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 <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> 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) <<NOTE: President.>> 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.

Approved October 16, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-721 (Comm. on International Relations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.
Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement.

<all>

[NewYorkerfromMass]

15. The ultimate question is would the American people vote for this clown

knowing what they know now? We'll find out soon. (80 days or so)