Would you have supported H.J. Res. 114, the Iraq War Resolution?

[goobergunch]

H.J.Res.114

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

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 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 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) 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.

Passed the House of Representatives October 10, 2002, and the Senate October 11, 2002.
Approved October 16, 2002.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.114.ENR:

[goobergunch]

1. I cast my vote against this blank check. (n/t)

[lcordero]

2. I don't support it and this is why:

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--

on edit: This is a blank check.

[isbister]

16. in order to....

yes, go on.... in order to.... what

[goobergunch]

17. As it says in the post:

(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.

But the operative words are those in bold in post #2.

[isbister]

20. Try this

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.

[goobergunch]

29. That's what I said (n/t)

[hlthe2b]

3. Many of us did everything possible to bolster Senator Byrd...

as he tried in vain to argue against this "blank check." He was largely excoriated for his efforts. How right you were, Senator!

[texasmom]

5. Exactly. I called Byrd's

office and thanked him for his thoughtful and passionate opposition to this administration's rush to war.

I still think that the Dems who voted for it were thinking about their political futures, thinking WMDs would be found, and thinking where that would put their re-election campaigns if they'd voted against. No courage.

[goobergunch]

4. Only 85% against?

This place is seeming more like the House Democratic Caucus (61% against) every day.

[bigtree]

6. you would have only two choices

Vote no with no guarantee that Bush wouldn't go in. He already had the authority under the War Powers Act that decades of presidents had used to commit forces without congressional approval.

Or you could do what the War Powers Act requires and pass a resolution that hopefully, as this one did, puts restrictions on that use of force. Bush disregarded the restraint implied in the resolution that mandated a return to the U.N and the exhaustion of every option, the re-convening of the Security Council, and a multi-lateral approach to regime change. The resolution doesn't mandate regime change. It was for disarnament only. Regime change was, by law, to occur in concert with the international community.

Bush disregarded the intent of the resolution and pushed forward with his preconcieved, unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation, in defiance of Congress, the American people, and the international community.

[goobergunch]

8. War Powers only applies for 60 days (n/t)

[bigtree]

11. After the troops had been deployed

what benefit would have come from a direction back to the U.N.?

At any rate, after deployment of forces, Congress would be loath to withdraw forces. I can't remember it ever happening that Congress voted to retreat.

We know that Bush didn't want to go back to Congress. His view was that 1441 gave all of the authority to do whatever he wanted. Under the War Powers Act, Congress can weigh in with a resolution before deployment, or after, which is a much weaker position of influence.

[Darranar]

7. Nay...

even if the war was right (which is wasn't), Bush cannot be trusted to choose when and how to launch his wars.

[isbister]

18. What gave him the choice was

the republican controlled Congress denying Democratic attempts to get the matter before Congress before the invasion began. Kucinich tried a number of ways to get this done but failed.

Not sure about all, but guess who stopped him... yup, that fellow who was so concerned about Clinton's sex life... Henry Hyde.

[Darranar]

21. And yet Democrats voted for it...

The "bipartisan" line is always useful propaganda.

BTW, some Republicans voted against it.

[dansolo]

42. Gephardt and Lieberman deserve some of the blame also

The Democrats may have had a chance if they didn't have their own members making deals with the White House.

[goobergunch]

9. Yeas 5 Nays 31

:kick:

[CabalBuster]

10. Shame on thoso who voted for this -- this is a blatant abdication of duty

[bigtree]

14. What guarantee do we have that a 'no' vote would have restrained Bush?

He could just commit forces and come back later and dare Congress to retreat. Then where would Congress influence his behavior?

Just voting 'no' would not have restrained Bush's predisposed ambition to invade and occupy. The resolution had a chance to stifle his manufactured mandate. Bush disregarded restraint implied in the resolution and rushed to war.

[Malikshah]

15. It's called courage of one's convictions

Or lack thereof as the case was in the Congress.

It was wrong from the get go-- no matter what * would have done.

Any arguments otherwise are vacillating regarding the honor and integrity that should have been accorded to such a momentous decision.

The resolution gave * something to work with. The ultimate in slippery slopes...unfortunately, this slope's slippery with the blood of thousands.

[bigtree]

19. To suggest that those who sought to reign Bush in lack conviction

makes no sense if you accept, like I do, that the resolution was designed to forestall the push to war. Bush wasn't inclined to even consult Congress. He was crowing that the 1441 U.N. resolution gave him the right to do what he wanted. Public pressure brought him back to Congress. Congressional pressure limited his mandate. He disregarded that and pushed forward.

In John Kerry's floor speech before the vote he clearly outlined the reasons for that support. His vote had nothing to do with unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation. Neither did the resolution.

Here's what he said about his support for the resolution:

TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR
October 9, 2002
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

[Malikshah]

23. Courage of one's convictions includes reality

The reality is clear-- the arguments made be all who supported it whether or not they supported *'s overall goals don't hold water with many.

Giving * the go ahead is the end result. Anything else ignores the larger reality of the push to war. The fact that the administration was planning to go against Iraq from the getgo (prior to 9/11) as has come out w/ Suskind's work adds to the weakness of any argument that folks trusted * to follow the rules. Those meetings re: Iraq did not occur in a vacuum--secrets are quite hard to keep in DC.

I reiterated that anyone (not focusing on any one presidential candidate, but rather ALL who supported the resolutions) who did not vote against the resolution shirked their responsibility to the people.

Harsh? Yep. Let's just say I'm tired of the writing off of thousands of death as politics as usual. Yeah, I'm an idealist etc. but I stand by it here.

[MaggieSwanson]

27. Nay, and as for my candidate of choice...

Dennis Kucinich
October 22, 2003

"It was a year ago February that I gave a speech titled "A Prayer for America" that flooded my office with Emails, letters, and phone calls asking me to run for President. In that speech I protested the Bush Administration's build-up to war, and I have continued to oppose that war unwaveringly and do so still today, because this war has been declared over but our soldiers continue to die, our occupation continues to destabilize the region, and our public resources continue to be drained by this fraudulent and unjust project.

"While I organized in communities with you against the war, I also organized in Congress. I led an effort that persuaded nearly two-thirds of the Democrats in the House to vote against the war. I also sued the President in an attempt to prevent him from going to war without a Congressional Declaration. And I led the effort to oppose the recent funding increase for this occupation to the tune of 87 billion dollars. That's more than all the states' deficits combined."

[salin]

22. does this imply

that whenever there are not enough votes - one should vote with bush because one cannot influence the outcome? Then what is the point of having an opposition party? If one cedes the ability to challenge the policy in the future because one will be charged with having supported said policy - then one renders oneself impotent. Certainly you are not suggesting that because they didn't have the votes the dems should have voted with bush on medicare, on the omnibus spending... that when patriot2 comes up they shouldn't support him if it is going to pass anyway...

I understand why Kerry and others voted for this - and in the end I can vote for them despite it. But I will not accept any argument that at its base has the "they couldn't stop it so they had to vote for it" argument - as at its heart that entire argument belies the need for any opposition to any bill or measure now that bushco own congress as well as the Whitehouse.

[bigtree]

28. I don't think I said that salin

I'm sorry if I left that impression. I actually think both votes had validity for some. Others saw the affirmative vote as their affirmation of Bush's scheme. I don't think Sen. Kerry did though. I take him at his word that he wanted to restrain Bush with the resolution and push him back to the U.N.

I do believe however that Bush would have gone around a unanimous no vote. No way to know for sure, but he did assert that 1441 gave him the authority to do what he wanted. There would certainly be no way to restrain him after the troop's were deployed. Congress wouldn't retreat.

I don't think John Kerry had to vote for the bill but I believe he did it to forestall war as I believe what he has said before and after the vote.

Thanks for letting me clarify. Again I am sorry if my position denegrated those who saw their 'no' vote as defiance. That is a perfectly rightous stand which I fully respect and appreciate. :-)

[salin]

33. I have heard (what I interpreted) used as an explanation

- and hence I over reacted - thanks for the clarification.

As I said - I can except - with disappointment - the vote... and deal with it. A few of the rationalizations I have read for it, however, feel like overstretch.

Thanks again for your clarification, and its respectful manner :D

[Hippo_Tron]

32. I don't know if Bush would've had the balls to commit...

Plus I think not getting authorization would've made it impossible to do anything because of the War Powers Resolution. Bush had already deployed the forces by the time the resolution was voted on.

[Iverson]

38. incredible

The test of whether to vote yes or no is not, I repeat: not, whether we can divine the future and somehow know for sure what Bush's behavior would be.

The test of whether to vote yes or no is primarily the merits of the argument, which in this case are next to none. For some, realpolitik is also a consideration, but in life-and-death decisions, don't expect sympathy from me for that kind of moral cowardice.

It is difficult to see this license as "restraint," since wars of aggression were already forbidden under the UN Charter, to which we are signatory. In fact, resolving that Bush can himself decide to enforce UN resolutions on his terms looks not at all like restraint to me, nor did it at the time, nor at any time since. Byrd had the right idea on this one.

[Cheswick2.0]

53. They should have voted no until the restraint was more than "implied"

BTW I am not reading any "implied" restraint in that resolution.

[Malikshah]

12. It is simple--No

I've spent the better part of my life studying the region from the medieval to the modern period. It was clear from the get go that this was an unwarranted war, pure and simple.

Those in Congress had more resources than I concerning the details of current events--they neglected their responsibility to research the region, its peoples, and its current state. Shame on each and every one of them who voted in support of this grab for power.

Knowledge is indeed power and they shot that down for short term goals (political or otherwise) They do not deserve to represent us in any way shape or form.

[Cuban_Liberal]

13. Nay. n/t

[HereSince1628]

24. No, I don't believe 3.b.2 was fulfilled

Saddam has not been shown to be a terrorist, nor was Iraq a terrorist organization, and it has never been shown that Iraq, Iraqi organizations, or Saddam planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists involved in 911.

If the 911 commission comes to the same conclusion Bush stands (more) discraced, and it will have been shown that Bush took the nation to war in violation of the resolution.

[Padraig18]

25. I would have followed the Constitution, and voted 'Nay'.

Thank God my senator, Mr. Durbin, and 22 other Democrats believe that the Constitution means what it says, and voted against this abomination.

[poskonig]

26. Nope.

The language is too loose, and the errors of fact within it annoy me greatly.

[maxr4clark]

30. No. I know it's a no, I wrote my representatives to tell them not to.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. I'll account 12 out of those 13 yea's as lurking freepers...

And the other one must've pressed the wrong button.

[goobergunch]

34. kick for the morning crowd

:kick:

[buddhamama]

35. NAY

too many wars have been started based in Lies...
i would never vote YAY and give a President a blank check to declare war, least of all Bush*.

[in_cog_ni_to]

36. NEVER! n/t

[JNelson6563]

37. Michigan voted no, they spoke for me

As usual Michigan was well represented in the Senate. Levin even introduced an amendment to give Congress a little more control but the Bush appeasers were not to be stopped, they voted it down.

Spineless bastards.

Julie

[drfemoe]

39. I was praying for a Democrat

to fight *B* on this. It was a nightmare. I concluded most of them were scared of *B*. Then we had the Howard Dean campaign. He stands up for me. Prayer answered.

[AVID]

40. No

How did Max Baucus vote?

[krkaufman]

41. A resolution, yes...

That resolution, no.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

43. My HONEST answer is I DON'T KNOW

As an ordinary citizen who read the same info YOU did, NO I would not. Some voted NO such as Bob Graham but that was MORE due to the fact that Graham perceived other threats as bigger such as Syria.

Many senators were speaking against the war while Biden Lugar was being hammered out and once Biden Lugar was dead, they had this choice and a NO vote...they also had a long CLOSED DOOR security meeting that we STILL don't know the details of.

SO my answer is...in my GUT I most probably would have voted NO knowing what I knew before, but that excludes LOTS that I was no privvy nor present to.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. No matter how it is spun, it was a pro-vs-antiwar vote.

To say that Kerry and Edwards voted for the war in order to prevent the war is downright Orwellian.

I expect their apologists to next claim that they were blind drunk when they voted to back bush. At least that would make sense.

[genius]

45. Unlike Dean, I would not have supported Biden-Lugar, which was

worse.

[DFLforever]

46. Kick - IWR :

:kick:

too bad Kerry didn't have the option of voting 'present' in Oct 2002.

[goobergunch]

54. He did

There are three possible votes on any question in Congress: Aye, No, or Present.

[joshcryer]

47. No it wasn't.

...

[ibegurpard]

49. Oh Good Lord!

Biden-Lugar was considered a much better compromise by no less than the ACLU.

[IndianaGreen]

51. "Vote for me because I was against Biden-Lugar" is Kerry's slogan

Kerry will lead us to victory in November as he and his followers chant "Biden-Lugar" and "Bush was AWOL!"

The rest of us, who are infused with a healthy dose of realism, are resigning ourselves to four more years of Barney cams, and preparing for the recriminations and finger pointing that will follow Kerry's defeat.

[AnnitaR]

48. I vote NAY, and I'm APPALLED that we

may have a nominee that voted YEA! What has happened to our party?

It honestly makes me sick to my stomach. The last three people who will ever get my vote are Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman!

[Myra]

50. No. And those that did vote to invade another nation with no provocation,

with no proof of "imminent threat," and with no evidence presented
of a threat then or now, are war criminals. I think they should be
treated as such.

They are the immoral product of an imperialist and predatory nation.

[Hekate]

52. My friends and I were in the streets every Saturday for months...

...trying to prevent the invasion of Iraq. Rallies, community forums, petitions, letters to newspapers and congresspeople. Prayer vigils, candlelight vigils, daylight vigils on street corners. A completely representative cross-section of my part of this nation turned out, and I was so proud of us all: old people and college kids; combat veterans of other wars; people in wheelchairs and babies in strollers; hundreds of ordinary people dressed for a walk in our local climate -- but news photos focused on the wildish-looking drummers who kept our bodies moving and grooving with their syncopated beat.

If it were not for the Internet, especially DU, I would have thought my townsfolk were marching all alone, so profoundly did the mainstream media ignore this great movement. But I know there were millions around the world and in this country.

Our government was not listening to us. Bush-Cheney, Inc. had made up their minds and lied their way into the invasion.

When David Kay spoke out, I was glad. But when he said that NO ONE KNEW, I recognized that statement as just another lie.

We knew.

Hekate stands at the crossroads of the Underworld...

ARLINGTON WEST, SANTA BARBARA CALIF.
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Default.htm
then click on the large photo of AW which will take you here:
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Arlington_west_121003.htm
Scroll down the page for all the photos, then go back up to follow the links.