Two Significant Anniversaries Today

[slipslidingaway]

The stock market lows on 10/10/02 and the vote in the House to authorize military force against Iraq.


http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

H J RES 114 YEA-AND-NAY 10-Oct-2002 3:05 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq


http://www.prophet.net/default.jsp

[Ishoutandscream2]

1. 2002 really, really sucked

Terrible year. And the sheep (aka) the American people, were falling for all the bull being served by the administration and the MSM.

[slipslidingaway]

2. But look at all the profits people have made since the 2002 low.

On the other hand not enough people in Congress were challenging the administration on the imminent threat from Iraq and once again not enough people are challenging them on Iran :(

[slipslidingaway]

3. We controlled the Senate at the time of the IWR, in the

exchange below between Senator Byrd and Senator Sarbanes they speak of the difficulty of trying to undo the broad authority being given to the President, something that was not discussed very much at the time :(

But it is being talked about now.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10287&position=all

"Mr. BYRD. I do, I do. And I say further
to my dear friend that as soon as
this resolution is adopted and signed
by the President of the United States,
Congress is out of it. It is on the sidelines.
We may wish we could say something.
We may wish we could do something.
But as far as the human eye can
see, we are out of it until such time as
Congress asks to repeal this legislation
or to put a limit on it internally.
Mr. SARBANES. Let me ask my colleague
this question: Suppose some unforeseen,
extraordinary development
should take place after this resolution
is passed and sent down and signed by
the President which transforms perhaps
the weapons of mass destruction
situation. The President, though, could
still move ahead and go to war, could
he not?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. SARBANES. They would have
been given the authority to do that;
would that be correct?
Mr. BYRD. Absolutely. We would
have handed this over to the President—
lock, stock, and barrel. Here it
is.
Mr. SARBANES. When would the
President have to decide whether he
was going to use this authority? Let’s
assume with respect to passing it later
in the evening—although I will oppose
it—assuming it is passed and the Congress
authorizes the President to go to
war, in effect, with Iraq, is there a
limit on the time period in which the
President could then use that power to
launch war against Iraq?
Mr. BYRD. There is no limit.
I offered an amendment, and the distinguished
Senator from Maryland supported
that amendment today, as the
distinguished Senator from Minnesota
supported it, the distinguished Senator
from Michigan, the distinguished Senator
from New York, but we only got 31
votes. That amendment was defeated.
Mr. SARBANES. That underscores
what the distinguished Senator says in
this op-ed piece that appeared in this
morning’s New York Times. I quote:
We may not always be able to avoid war,
particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress
must not attempt to give away the authority
to determine when war is to be declared.
We must not allow any president to
unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion
and for an unlimited period of time.
Yet that is what we are being asked to do
.
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. SARBANES. This, of course, is a
decision with far-sweeping consequences,
certainly as it deals with
Iraq and all of its implication. But the
precedent is being established in terms
of the future, it seems to me, and that
constitutes a major erosion of the role
of the Congress with respect to the Nation
going to war.
Mr. BYRD. It does. And it is easy
enough, I suppose, to pass this resolution.
But should we try to negate it,
should we try to repeal it, should we
try to change the law, a President can
veto any change that Congress might
bring along later, any change it might
enact, in order to overturn this law it
is now about to adopt.
Mr. SARBANES. I am glad the distinguished
Senator made that point because
that is the next item I wanted to
go to. People could say: If the circumstances
changed and the Congress
wants to pull it back, why not come in,
pass a law, and pull it back? But the
fact is that a President who wanted to
keep that authority and may well want
to use it, as long as he could keep the
support of one-third—not of each House
of the Congress but only one-third of
one House, either a third of the Senators,
plus one, or a third of the Members
of the House of Representatives—
he could negate congressional action
that tried to pull back this war-making
authority, could he not?
Mr. BYRD. The distinguished Senator
from Maryland is absolutely correct.
It only takes a majority of both
Houses to pass this resolution, but it
would take two-thirds in the future if
the President should attempt to veto a
substitute piece of legislation by this
Congress to abort what we are doing
here today, to appeal it, to amend it.
One-third plus one in either body could
uphold the President’s veto, and that
legislation would not become law.
Mr. SARBANES. I think that is a
point we have not really touched on
much in this debate, but I think it is
an extremely important point.
What has happened—you pass this
resolution, you make a major grant of
war-making authority to the President,
but then if subsequently you decide
it ought to be pulled back or ought
not be exercised by the President, it is
extraordinarily difficult to do that, so
not only have you given the President
this broad power to begin with, but the
way the system is constructed, he can
hold on to that power, even if a majority
of both Houses of the Congress
which gave the power want to take it
back. Is that not correct?
Mr. BYRD. The Senator could not be
more correct. The Senator is absolutely
correct.
Mr. SARBANES. It is worth engaging
in this discussion just to underscore
the sweep of authority that is being
provided.
Again, I thank my colleague for his
leadership on this issue and especially
commend him for what I thought was a
very thoughtful and powerful article..."