Biden Seeks to Revoke Bush's 2002 Iraq Authority (IWR)

[AtomicKitten]

This is the best mea culpa so far IMO.

Democratic senator looks to revoke Bush's 2002 Iraq authority
Ron Brynaert
Published: Thursday February 15, 2007


A Democratic candidate for president is planning legislation that would revoke the 2002 Congressional authorization, which gave President Bush the power to invade Iraq, RAW STORY has learned.

In prepared remarks for a speech about Iraq to be given today at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution, Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, states that the "best next step is to revisit the authorization Congress granted the President in 2002 to use force in Iraq."

"That’s exactly what I’m doing," Biden continues. "We gave the President that power to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein."

Biden, along with two top Democratic presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton (NY-D) and former Senator and 2000 Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards, voted for the 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. While Edwards later apologized for his vote, Clinton recently insisted that her vote was "not a vote for a pre-emptive war," but was intended to support further United Nations-directed weapons inspections.

The 2008 candidates who voted in favor of the 2002 resolution face, so far, at least one heavyweight Democratic contender whose stance against the war has remained largely unchanged over the last five years. Senator Barack Obama (IL-D), who wasn't elected to the US Senate until November of 2004, attended rallies against the invasion before it occurred, and says that he would have voted against the resolution had he had the chance.

Today, Biden argues that since "the WMD were not there" and "Saddam Hussein is no longer there," the "2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq."

http://www.rawstory.com//news/2007/Democratic_senator_looks_to_revoke_Bushs_0215.html

[salin]

1. Hope he follows through

though I am not sure what the implications would be - or what such a resolution (to revoke the resolution) would say.

[AtomicKitten]

2. * was quoted as saying he thinks the IWR gives him

... the authority to invade Iran without having to go back to Congress; in his view it also gave him the authority to torture and for rendition, and also to spy on Americans without warrants.

I'd rather see action like this taken than hear the tap-dancing apologies from the other knuckleheads that voted 'yes' on the IWR. IMO it's like judging a contest in which artists paint with feces. Some techniques may be better, but the medium is still shit.

[salin]

4. Don't get me wrong, I like reading/hearing it... but

I have learned to skeptically wait until I see what action follows. Biden, in the speeches leading up to the IWR vote was passionate about holding bush accountable - first he was in opposition to the vote - then on his vote he blustered that 'I will hold the President to his word and to the promises given' (in the last minute fear/terror briefings given to congressmen to persuade them to vote)... and then not only did he vote for the IWR - he was war supportive and, I believe, held on to the WMD rhetoric a little while after Kay came back stating No Weapons. So it has taken him five years to finally 'act' on his promise to hold bush accountable per the war resolution? I really would like to believe this will mean something - but I still sting from the last time I believed him per his strong opposition sounding rhetoric.

[karynnj]

11. He also withheld criticism of the war in 2004

because he thought it should not be brought up as a political issue. This when he was a surrogate.

[Tellurian]

18. K&R...

:dem:

[acmavm]

3. I see another signing statement in the Decider's future if this takes off.

[salin]

5. Indeed.

The historians are going to have a field day studying bushco. Tragic that we have to live through the history before it will be studied.

[wyldwolf]

6. CORPORATIST WAR MONGERING OPPORTUNISTIC DLC SHILL! .. uh... wait...

Good for Biden!

[karynnj]

7. Biden was not the first to push this

Senator Warner spoke of doing this late last year. In early January, Senator Kerry outlined this in a SFRC meeting as something that should be done and which Senator Kennedy's already introduced resolution required - The purpose was as much to specify what Bush has the authority to do going forward. Senator Dodd, at that meeting was for it too. (Biden was reading a newspaper and looked uninterested.)

Biden is the chair of the committee, so if it is done it will likely be his bill - because it will be referred to that committee.

From Kerry's SRFC January 24, 2007 comments:

"What I am going to circulate and ask colleagues to support at the appropriate time -- I had a resolution last year to set a date. The date I sought is actually similar the one put forth by the Iraq Study Group. It also happens to coincide with what the president himself said. He thought we could begin having the troops out and the authority transferred to the Iraqis. So there's no arbitrariness to it.

Now, I know my colleagues' discomfort with us setting a date, so I changed that. I'm still for it, but I want to try to see if we can get something all together. And I will circulate and ask colleagues to support a combined reauthorization.

And the reason for the reauthorization is very simple, folks. We gave the president the authorization for use of military force in Iraq, pursuant to Public Law 107, specifically, number one, to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

That was specifically WMD and threat with respect to terror.

Two, to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

KERRY: Well, we have a new Iraq, an entirely new government, an entirely new situation. What I believe we ought to do is take our responsibilities seriously with respect to the authorization of our troops to go to war.

And that means reauthorize it in some form, whatever you think is appropriate. What I think is appropriate is what the Iraq Study Group suggested and what, ultimately, the president said can happen if we transfer authority and the Iraqis assume it.

So I would say that what we ought to do, rather than us being specific about the timetable, rather than sitting here and suffering the accusations for being arbitrary, rather than us getting into a contest with the president over his authority, we make the authorization contingent on how those troops are going to be used: to represent America's interests in the region; to represent our security interests with respect to Iran; to represent our interests with respect to chasing Al Qaida; to represent our interests with respect to protecting our facilities and forces as they come out.

But we also require the president to negotiate that timetable, together with the government of Iraq. So we require the president; he negotiates; we put a time frame on the period within which he must negotiate it; and we represent our clear interests in the region with respect to terror, reconstruction and what the deployment of our forces would be."

Kerry on the Senate floor, later that day in the speech where he said he was not running, ties this in to Senator Kennedy's already introduced resolution that required a new authorization:

"That is why I support the resolution submitted by my colleague, Senator Kennedy, that requires a new congressional authorization, which is appropriate because the prior authorization only applies to the weapons of mass destruction and to the threat that Iraq poses to us based on the presence of Saddam Hussein. This is a new Iraq , and it is an Iraq with a civil war, and the Congress of the United States has a responsibility and a moral obligation to make certain that if our troops from each of our States are going to fight and die, we stand up and be counted as to what the force structure is to be, as to what their mission should be because this administration has proven unwilling to get it right. "

It is good news that Biden has bought into this, but he was not first and it was not original. I would respect him more if he like Kerry, credited people who did things first.

[mtnsnake]

13. So in your view, "Biden has bought into this" but Kerry deserves the credit. Now THAT is funny

And then there's this, right from the part you pasted in your post about what Kerry had to say on the matter:

From Kerry's SRFC January 24, 2007 comments:

"What I am going to circulate and ask colleagues to support at the appropriate time -- I had a resolution last year to set a date. The date I sought is actually similar the one put forth by the Iraq Study Group. It also happens to coincide with what the president himself said. He thought we could begin having the troops out and the authority transferred to the Iraqis. So there's no arbitrariness to it.

Now, I know my colleagues' discomfort with us setting a date, so I changed that. I'm still for it, but I want to try to see if we can get something all together. And I will circulate and ask colleagues to support a combined reauthorization.

"I'm still for it, but..."

Same old John Kerry. The man can't make up his mind to save his life. Some things never change!

[karynnj]

15. Reading comprehension is everything

Kerry is still for setting a deadline - and has a website dedicated to it. Here, what he is saying is that he is willing to circulate a joint resolution that will take the many parts of his Kerry/Feingold plan that most people agree with and add a reauthorization of the IWR. (This could get approval of people, like Obama, who from his own bill agree with most of Kerry's ideas - but balk at a deadline.)

In addition, he would continue, as he has since then speaking constantly about the need for a deadline. Note that the deadline is the issue he has pushed the most - in every interview. This was the very day he unveiled SETADEADLINE.COM.

This is NOT a change in direction or a flip/flop. If you wanted 4 things, A,B,C,and D and asking for them as a set meant you would get none, would you split the request into two pieces? Kerry actually did something like this in 2006 - he got his wording on a regional summit included in the defense spending bill - because Warner agreed to it. It was passed by a voice vote - and when the defense spending bill was passed, the Senate was then on record demanding a regional summit. (which the ISG a few months later also recommended.)

Also, I did NOT give Kerry credit - Warner spoke of it as early last fall and I showed that Kerry positioned it as doing what Kennedy already proposed as something that had to be done.

[blm]

17. Still for his way but will seek to alter it to get MORE VOTES to pass something.

Gee - is the senate NOT supposed to work like that?

Is that YOUR desire - that all senators stick to only their preference so NOTHING ever passes? Or do you just have different standards for Kerry, as your postings against him have shown?

[mtnsnake]

8. Go Joe! I also love this part of the article where Biden slammed him but good:

Stephanopoulos asked Biden, "The administration is stepping up the rhetoric on your resolution. You saw the president, the vice-president, General Petraeus, all saying it would hurt morale and Pentagon Secretary Robert Gates added, 'It will embolden the enemy.' Are you worried that may be true?"

"No," Biden responded. "Not at all."

"It's not the American and the United States Congress who are emboldening the enemy," Biden continued. "It's the failed policy of this president, going to war without a strategy, going to war prematurely, going to war without enough troops, going to war without enough equipment and, lastly, now sending 17,500 people in the middle of a city of six and a half million people with bulls-eyes on their back, with no plan."

One thing I've always liked about Biden...when he decides to get on Bush's case, he doesn't beat around the bush. When it comes to bashing Bush directly, few do it better than Biden does. He just says what's on the tip of his tongue, and he's not afraid to let it fly. I find that refreshing.

Thanks for posting this!

[texpatriot2004]

9. K & R nm

[Eurobabe]

10. GOOD!! K&R

Thanks for posting Atomic Kitten, I miss your bouncy mouse avatar!

[blm]

12. This was established in debate between Sen. Warner and Kerry during Kerry-Feingold

vote. Glad Biden finally came around to agree with what was APPARENT last year after the Iraqis held their third election.

[mtnsnake]

14. Oh please

Biden deserves the credit. Otherwise Kerry would be written up by Raw Story, but he isn't. Maybe if Kerry stuck to one idea and didn't always change his garbled rhetoric in midstream, then perhaps he'd be the one getting written up in the article instead of Biden, who didn't dilly dally.

John Kerry: "I'm still for it, but..."

[blm]

16. Oh brother - where were you last spring and summer? Do you only read RawStory when

someone's plan OTHER than Kerry's plan is featured?

Did you really miss the Kerry-Feingold debates last June? Or is this just another opportunity to scorn Kerry because it tickles juvenile funnybones in jerking knees?

[mtnsnake]

19. Well, maybe you should plead your case to the editors of RawStory

if it upsets you to no end that Biden is getting the credit due to him for this...here and now in the present time we're speaking...and not Kerry.

Maybe they'll re-print whatever the heck Kerry story from the past that you're talking about just for your convenience. It's worth a try.

[blm]

20. I'm not complaining - I said I'm glad Biden has finally come AROUND to what was being

said last spring and summer by others and was part of the debate during Kerry-Feingold. Aren't YOU glad he came around on this issue?

[ProSense]

21. It's interesting how everything obvious under the sun is being discussed except

a plan to end the war.

Kerry said this in the Democratic radio address last Saturday:

Today, they have grown disillusioned. The war they fought to protect the world from Iraq’s imagined weapons of mass destruction ended a long time ago. Saddam Hussein is dead. Now, Iraq is immersed in a bloody civil war -- and too often the brave men and women who wear the uniform of our country are paying the highest price...

Start talking about ending the war and holding Bush accountable.