Yes or No answer: Was the IWR working on March 15, 2003?

[blm]

That is, were the weapons inspections working to prove military action was not necesssary and were diplomatic efforts reporting progress in getting Saddam to transition power peacefully?

yes or no.

[mike_c]

1. I'm sorry-- could you rephrase the question...?

Since you want a simple answer, the question needs to be straightforward. The IWR is the Iraq War Resolution, which has virtually nothing to do with weapons inspections. Inspections were performed by UNSCOM and UNMOVIC. I'm sure you know all this-- maybe you just phrased the question ambiguously?

The last day that UNMOVIC inspectors were in Iraq was 17 March 2003 if I'm not mistaken. Was that your question? They left three days before the invasion began.

on edit-- the IWR does not call for either of the actions you mentioned in your OP-- they are both recognized in the past tense in the preamble, but not in the resolution itself (after the words "it is resolved").

[htuttle]

3. I think that was a key flaw of the IWR

There were a lot if things that some legislators seem to think were implied in the IWR (which led to lots of talk about their intentions voting for it after the wheels fell off in Iraq), but the language of the IWR required none of those things.

Sure, Bush was SUPPOSED to give diplomacy a chance, but the language of the IWR did not require it. He was SUPPOSED to go back to the UN for a second resolution but the language of the IWR did not require it, etc...

At best, it was badly written legislation. At worst, it was mostly an attempt to triangulate the issue.

[mike_c]

5. I'm just not convinced they were so naive....

I mean, a significant proportion of them are lawyers, trained since birth that if something says "red," "scarlet" can be excluded. More to the point, they're mostly experienced legislators so you'd think they'd know damn well and good that the preamble to a bill simply sets the context for legislative action, and the resolved part is the bit that requires somebody to do something, changes existing law, etc. They cannot possibly be so naive as to have thought otherwise.

on edit-- perhaps I should have been more explicit about Sec. 2, but the point still remains-- they should have known that it did not require further diplomacy, only expressed congress's approval for past efforts.

[blm]

10. That's your interpretation - weapon inspectors weren't in there for kicks

and neither was the extensive diplomacy that was going on by other countries - they were doing it to AVOID WAR. Bush KNEW their efforts were proving war unnecessary so he rushed his determination, and he LIED to do it.

He could not claim honestly that the nation's security was in any way at risk, and that is because of the success of the weapons inspections and diplomatic efforts.

So - he LIED. But that is not the fault of the IWR. No resolution is going to tell a president - oh by the way tell the truth - presidents are EXPECTED To tell the truth in official documents like his letter to congress because it's an impeachable offense.

So - impeach the liar.

[robbedvoter]

2. No. The WMD were long gone. IWR was unnecessary from the start.

Saddam was NEVER a threat.
Here's Clinton in August 2002:

make one observation. Saddam Hussein presents no conventional
military threat
to us, and a
much smaller one to his allies than he did before the Gulf War.
His military
strength, it is
commonly conceded, is about 40 percent of what it was before
the Gulf War. He
did try to
assassinate former President Bush in 1993 with the most clumsy
terrorist
operation I ever
saw. The car bombs that we uncovered practically said, "made by
the operatives of
Saddam
Hussein in Baghdad." But after we bombed his intelligence
building, as far as we
know, he
never took another serious terrorist act himself. And the Bush
administration has
said that
Iraq was not involved in September the 11th.
http://www.cfr.org/public/Clinton_6-17-02_Transcript.html

We know Powell made a similar statement. There was no need to replace Saddam or do ANYTHING whatsoever in Iraq. At least not for the American people as opposed to Halliburton et al.

[blm]

4. The weapons inspections were working. The diplomatic efforts were working.

twist it any way you want - but that cannot change the FACT that the IWR was actually working to prevent war so Bush had to violate it to have his war.

[mike_c]

8. I think perhaps you misunderstand the IWR.....

There's an explanation here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/mike_c/1

The short and sweet explanation is that the IWR was formal authorization to go to war without any further requirements EXCEPT that Bush notify congress shortly after invading. Specifically, the IWR did not call for any further inspections, diplomacy, etc. Read the IWR-- the value of PAST diplomacy is acknowledged in the preamble and in Sec. 2, but it contains no such requirement for further diplomacy. It is a blanket authorization to use force at the president's discretion. It's a remarkable document that hid a fully loaded gun behind a lengthy preamble of flowery lies.

[robbedvoter]

11. I thought Kerry said he regretted voting for it - was he wrong then?

You're trying to defend an action he already disavowed. Are you trying to outkerry Kerry?
Again:

THERE WAS NO REASON FOR WAR, INSPECTIONS, IWR - none of it!

Hense, nothing worked - it was a hoax, like "we fight them over there so we don't over here"

[blm]

12. Kerry is saying what he needs to say because the reality is that the media

spin about the IWR has WON and that is what he has to deal with. I don't have to deal with it, because I am not a public figure who has to acknowledge that the spin won and act accordingly.

Look at Clark, who said he would have taken a stand like Kerry's, but after the onslaught from those who equated IWR as a desire for war, he had to say he misspoke, his way of dealing with the REALITY that mediaspin on IWR had already won.

Many of YOU all allowed the mediaspin to prevail. I will not. Bush had to LIE to stop the success of the IWR guidelines. YOU ALL let him off the hook when you blame the IWR - it will never be treated as a document that Bush was VIOLATING because this is a knee-jerk nation and Rove knew it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. What are these guidelines of which you speak?

Do you mean

(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.

The problem with that is that it leaves the determination up to Bush, and is as fuzzy as "is not likely to lead to enforcement".

[blm]

14. Bush LIED about the "continuing threat" after weapons inspections and

diplomatic efforts were already proving to be successful in PREVENTING use of military force.

ALL presidents are under the LAW that prohibits them from submitting a document containing false statements. The IWR required Bush submit a letter to Congress - he LIED. All the evidence he was presented before March 17, said there was NO CONTINUING THREAT. Bush had to LIE to go to war.

It doesn't have to be written into a resolution that a president needs to be honest - all resolutions are written with an already determined law that ALL PRESIDENTS are prohibited from submitting official documents containing false statements.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. He didn't have to prove a continuing threat

it was that, OR part B, which says "is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq". So all he had to do was say just one of the UNSC resolutions was unlikely to be enforced. Given that UNSC resolutions go unenforced all the time, it wasn't a high barrier for him to clear.

[blm]

17. And yet the UN res was being enforced SUCCESSFULLY as of March 17, 2003.

ALL evidence that exists points to that fact. So, Bush LIED in his official document.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. Bush just had to state his opinion on the likelhood of enforcement

It is possible he did lie (have you a link to his submission to Congress?), but the IWR was so awfully written that Bush just had to give his determination - it was an effective blank cheque. Congress really did screw up by voting for it.

[blm]

22. His determination was to be after the enforcement of UN res

requiring weapons inspections and renewed diplomacy - all evidence points to those efforts as progressing positively - Bush had to LIE in determining that we were under threat. Not one shred of evidence backed him at that crucial point.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. There's nothing in the IWR about requiring new inspections

Those came about because of the later UNSC resolution 1441. The IWR just says it supports the President's efforts to work through the UNSC, and then gives him the authorisation, saying he should give them his determination when he invokes the IWR to attack Iraq. This appears to have been it:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing 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.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

That's it - he just had to say "I determine it so". I don't know if the 'enclosed document' was made public. He did say he thought Iraq was a continuing threat, but the IWR left that determination up to him, without giving any way for it to be discussed or tested.

[blm]

25. Because it is accepted that a president CANNOT lie in an official document

and all the existing evidence points AWAY from war - so Bush saying he made the determination that military force was needed to defend our national security is a lie - he made a false statement in an official document which is an impeachable offense.

And the IWR does refer to the UN res from 1991 which was used to put back weapons inspectors and renew diplomatic efforts.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. "To determine" is "to decide"

It gave him the decision, not the need to show national security was threatened. The 1991 resolution didn't restrict Bush; it just gave him another possible resolution to say "look, they violated one of the resolutions". The IWR claims the use of 'all necessary means' to enforce that one is still relevant - it seems to be encouraging Bush to use force. If the IWR was meant to restrain Bush, it should have had language in it that did restrain him, such as requiring him to get UNSC authorisation for force.

[bigtree]

26. The determination was 'up to him' regardless of the IWR

considering the levers he had available to go to war.

He squared it with Congress on paper, but that was just a technicality. It's not like he would have kept the forces he was mobilizing waiting for approval. All of the paper passed just happened to mesh with his well-reported intention and posture to invade.

Why should anyone agree with Bush's claims that these provisions were met? Were they? Didn't he lie?

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. The IWR gave him more power

Wouldn't he have had to specify to Congress which laws allowed him to attack Iraq, otherwise? And he would have had to pull out after 60 days, unless Congress gave him continuing authority. The purpose of the IWR was to support Bush in invading Iraq if he decided to.

[bigtree]

30. Support, maybe. Authorize what he ultimately did? I don't believe so.

Try getting Congress to pull the rug out from under an invading force. Never happen.

All in the name of 'national security', WMD threat.

[blm]

33. It's ALWAYS up to a president - that doesn't give him cover to submit an

official document that makes a FALSE STATEMENT. That's ILLEGAL. And I don't understand those who do believe that the IWR gave Bush more cover. NO resolution ever gives a president the COVER to lie in an official document to congress.

Would people rather go to court on the issue of the IWR with the evidence from the weapons inspectors and diplomats working to get Saddam out of the country and the Downing Street Memos, or Bush's OFFICIAL DOCUMENT?

Which case has the evidence?

[bigtree]

35. that's the nub. Bush lied. Broke the law

Skirted the restraint mandated in the resolution

[robbedvoter]

40. What restraint? "Inform Congress of progress"? that was "IT"

The only restraint in IWR. He did skirt it to be sure, but it wouldn't even register on the radar next to his other crimes. And it doesn't excuse Congress's complacency in covering for him, legitimizing his crime (or rather - giving it the semblance of legitimacy)

[bigtree]

18. what about the provision that mandated a return to the security council?

He trashed that one. Hard for them to point to the IWR as permission for their invasion. Nothing in the IWR prevents Congress from cutting off funds and ending the occupation, and Bush had all of the authority he needed to commit forces without congressional approval inherent in a loophole in the War Powers Act which allows the president to deploy troops for a period of time and come back to the Congress for approval. I would argue that the initial $87b funding bill (which Kerry voted against) was the real authorization for the war.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. But the IWR didn't say "all future SC resolutions must be followed ...

... to the letter". The IWR meant that if Bush thought any Iraq UNSC resolution wouldn't be enforced, Congress had given him permission to attack Iraq, whether or not the UNSC wanted it attacked. The $87 billion funding was in the fall of 2003. Great, Kerry was fully against the occupation by then. That doesn't change the IWR being a very bad thing for Congress to pass, because it allowed Bush to invade Iraq.

[ProSense]

21. Not quite!

There is an "and"

The IWR states "in order to" and the specifies "presidential determination".

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 there after 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 resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists 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 resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

There threat was neither imminent or real, the inspectors hadn't completed their job and were pleading to continue, Iraq wasn't linked to terrorism, and Congressional leaders were warning against the war before it was launch.

The IWR laid out a set of criteria that had to be met and specifically stated that Bush could only go to war as a last resort (meeting the criteria) in the face of an imminent threat. Bush's violation: He ignored the criteria and started a war without the existence of an imminent threat to the United States.

Bush simply created the evidence and urgency.

In the face of an imminent threat, the War Powers Resolution allows the president to go to war without prior Congressional approval. The president needs to report back to Congress withing 60 days after executing a war---provide justification so to speak. He could have taken that route, the Republicans in congress and most of the country was behind him. He would have done it and it would have been a done deal. By the time Bush had to report back, that "Mission Accomplished" statement would have already been made.


The question is: If only the 49 Republicans and one Independent had signed the legislation, do you think that would have stopped Bush from going to war?

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. That 'and' just means the invasion shouldn't have affected looking for

bin Laden. Now, in my opinion he'd already actually compromised the hunt for bin Laden by pulling regional experts and special forces away from Afghanistan to prepare for invading Iraq; and Kerry did criticise him for that on the '04 campaign. Showing he had compromised that operation to the extent neede to hurt Bush may be difficult, though. It's a matter of opinion on the capabilities of the US forces. I'm sure he could have lined up generals to say what he wanted them to say.

But the IWR is not about an 'imminent threat' - that's what the normal law is about. The IWR gave Bush the right to decide to invade Iraq, without having to prove urgency, but using a 'continuing threat' instead. That just meant Bush had to say "I determine the threat is continuing" - it implies Congress already accepted Iraq as a threat.

No, I think Bush would have gone to war with just 50 signatures and Cheney's on the IWR. That doesn't mean that signing it wasn't a bad move by the Democrats who did.

[ProSense]

34. No, and

meant all criteria had to be met and Bush had to prove that they were met, not just say they were met. This is why, in light of opposition, Bush falsified the evidence and continually repeated that Iraq was imminent threat and linked Iraq to al Qaida.

Like I said, the threat was neither imminent or real, the inspectors hadn't completed their job and were pleading to continue, Iraq wasn't linked to terrorism, and Congressional leaders were warning against the war before it was launch.

[bigtree]

23. If the IWR is so enabling what's in it that would prevent Congress

from withholding funding and ending the war? That's what makes the noise over the resolution so baffling to me. Bush had the power to commit forces without the resolution. He said so before the vote. It was said that he intended to commit forces no matter what Congress did.

After he deploys it's nearly impossible to pull the rug out from an invading force. It wasn't like Haiti under Clinton where he waited for progress on the ground before inserting a 'peacekeeping' force. Bush had the bulk of our forces mobilized. The period between the reporting requirements of the War Powers Act more than allowed for Bush to proceed with the invasion.

The IWR can't be reasoned as giving Bush cover because he disregarded the provisions that mandated restraint. His posture at the time was that he was bypassing the U.N., Congress, and the American people in his rush to unilaterally invade.

I challenge you to find where the president asserted the IWR gave him authority to unilaterally invade, preemptively, before all peaceful means were exhausted. Were they exhausted? Of course not. Why do folks still insist then that Bush held to the resolution because of some slight interpretation? Why let him off of the hook for halting inspections and invading, especially since no WMDs have been uncovered? The IWR mandated restraint. Whether or not Bush had the temerity to disregard those provisions isn't relevant to the resolution's intentions.

Remember the Democrats who sought to direct Bush to rely on the inspectors through the resolution were in the minority. There was no chance that a unified Democratic opposition to the resolution would have passed, no chance that a unified Democratic support for the alternative would have prevailed. The IWR was the only vehicle left to include language about restraint. Some Democrats fought to get those included. It makes sense that they voted for the resolution.

But, The IWR did not give Bush the authority to do what he did. He fudged and skirted even the legislative intentions of the republican-controlled Congress. To continue to suggest the IWR gave him authority to invade and occupy Iraq just feeds into the lies that they use to justify what they did. I see no need in stretching the purpose and intention of the resolution to allow that Bush was authorized to preemptively and unilaterally rush to invade and occupy Iraq.

[robbedvoter]

41. W - was not-elected so he really has no authority to do jack shit

But the appearances are important for a wanna-be dictator - and congress obliged. Just like the candidates he stole the office from in 2004 obliged by keeping mum.

[robbedvoter]

36. Clark DID mispeak. He had asked Congress not to give W a blank check

on this - he told them that Iraq posed no threat.
If you think the IWR is a good thing and tell me Kerry thinks the same - well, I feel sorry for the two of you. There was no need whatsoever for inspections! And they KNEW IT.

[LSK]

6. Yes Inspectors were on the ground and finding nothing

There is debate whether the IWR forced Saddam to let them in.

[blm]

7. IWR referred back to original UN res from 1991 - most people skip over

that even though its the crucial portion that brought back UN inspectors and reconsitutued diplomatic efforts.

[mike_c]

9. only in the preamble, not in the resolution....

Remember, the preamble is nothing more than a discriptive statement about the rationale for the legislative action that follows in the resolution section.

[bigtree]

16. of course, Bush disregarded other relevant provisions

exhausting all peaceful means . . .

returning to the security council . . .

all this made more egregious by the fact the resolution relied so heavily on the first U.N. initiative. The shifting justifications make any purpose they may have used the IWR for self-serving, and frankly, irrelevant. Bush had all of the authority he needed to commit forces without going to Congress. He pushed past this resolution and its provisions which intended to restrain his drive to war, pulled inspectors out and invaded without regard to the resolution.

How many times have you heard administration officials refer to the IWR as justification for their invasion and occupation? They don't because they can't.

[BurtWorm]

31. Saddam said he would let inspectors in unconditionally a month before

IWR passed. How, then, can anyone say IWR was responsible for getting inspectors back into Iraq?

[BurtWorm]

32. IWR was working just as Rove had planned it to.

It's still working. Ask any Dem who voted for it.

[robbedvoter]

38. Bingo! It was nothing more than a trap. For Dems, for Iraq

for averyone - while the BFEE was getting ready for the attack no matter what.

[mdmc]

37. Yes

No.

Yes, as in it worked better then war. No, as in it was not working up to my expectations.

Nice OP.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. The proof of it's effectiveness is in Haditha.

Not to mention the tens of thousands of dead all over Iraq.

It was a cynical move by the administration and cynically voted for by ambitious polticians proving their "patriotism".