IWR - who sponsored it? Who co-sponsored it? Should any of these people get our vote for POTUS?

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P
NEW SEARCH | HOME | HELP | ABOUT COSPONSORS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.J.RES.46
Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Sponsor: Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. (introduced 10/2/2002)      Cosponsors (16)
Related Bills: H.J.RES.114, S.J.RES.45
Latest Major Action: 10/3/2002 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 630.
Note: For further action, see H.J.Res. 114, which became Public Law 107-243 on 10/16/2002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(16), ALPHABETICAL :     (Sort: by date)

Sen Allard, Wayne - 10/2/2002 Sen Baucus, Max - 10/7/2002
Sen Bayh, Evan - 10/2/2002 Sen Breaux, John B. - 10/9/2002
Sen Bunning, Jim - 10/4/2002 Sen Domenici, Pete V. - 10/2/2002
Sen Edwards, John - 10/3/2002 Sen Helms, Jesse - 10/2/2002
Sen Hutchinson, Tim - 10/2/2002 Sen Johnson, Tim - 10/7/2002
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. - 10/2/2002 Sen McCain, John - 10/2/2002
Sen McConnell, Mitch - 10/2/2002 Sen Miller, Zell - 10/2/2002
Sen Thurmond, Strom - 10/10/2002 Sen Warner, John - 10/2/2002


They foistered that on the senators to get them trapped in the dilemma: are you a patriot or do you represent your voters?
These sponsors actively helped BFEE sell and legitimize this war. They are guiltier than those who merely voted for IWR.
How should we reward them? Huh?

H.J. 114 Sponsored by Dennis Hastert is the version that passed -
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:

Rep Ackerman, Gary L. - 10/8/2002
Rep Akin, W. Todd - 10/8/2002
Rep Andrews, Robert E. - 10/8/2002
Rep Armey, Richard K. - 10/8/2002
Rep Bachus, Spencer - 10/8/2002
Rep Ballenger, Cass - 10/8/2002
Rep Barton, Joe - 10/8/2002
Rep Berman, Howard L. - 10/8/2002
Rep Biggert, Judy - 10/8/2002
Rep Blunt, Roy - 10/8/2002
Rep Boehner, John A. - 10/8/2002
Rep Boozman, John - 10/8/2002
Rep Brady, Kevin - 10/8/2002
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. - 10/8/2002
Rep Burton, Dan - 10/8/2002
Rep Buyer, Steve - 10/8/2002
Rep Callahan, Sonny - 10/9/2002
Rep Calvert, Ken - 10/8/2002
Rep Cannon, Chris - 10/8/2002
Rep Cantor, Eric - 10/8/2002
Rep Chambliss, Saxby - 10/8/2002
Rep Collins, Mac - 10/8/2002
Rep Combest, Larry - 10/8/2002
Rep Cox, Christopher - 10/9/2002
Rep Cramer, Robert E. (Bud), Jr. - 10/8/2002
Rep Crenshaw, Ander - 10/8/2002
Rep Cubin, Barbara - 10/8/2002
Rep Culberson, John Abney - 10/8/2002
Rep Cunningham, Randy (Duke) - 10/8/2002
Rep Davis, Jo Ann - 10/8/2002
Rep Davis, Tom - 10/8/2002
Rep DeLay, Tom - 10/8/2002
Rep DeMint, Jim - 10/8/2002
Rep Deutsch, Peter - 10/8/2002
Rep Dooley, Calvin M. - 10/8/2002
Rep Doolittle, John T. - 10/8/2002
Rep Dreier, David - 10/8/2002
Rep Dunn, Jennifer - 10/8/2002
Rep Edwards, Chet - 10/8/2002
Rep Everett, Terry - 10/8/2002
Rep Faleomavaega, Eni F. H. - 10/8/2002
Rep Ferguson, Mike - 10/8/2002
Rep Flake, Jeff - 10/8/2002
Rep Fletcher, Ernie - 10/8/2002
Rep Ford, Harold E., Jr. - 10/8/2002
Rep Fossella, Vito - 10/9/2002
Rep Frost, Martin - 10/8/2002
Rep Gallegly, Elton - 10/8/2002
Rep Ganske, Greg - 10/8/2002
Rep Gephardt, Richard A. - 10/2/2002
Rep Gibbons, Jim - 10/8/2002
Rep Gilchrest, Wayne T. - 10/8/2002
Rep Gillmor, Paul E. - 10/8/2002
Rep Gilman, Benjamin A. - 10/8/2002
Rep Graham, Lindsey - 10/8/2002
Rep Grucci, Felix J., Jr. - 10/8/2002
Rep Hall, Ralph M. - 10/8/2002
Rep Hansen, James V. - 10/8/2002
Rep Hart, Melissa A. - 10/8/2002
Rep Hayworth, J. D. - 10/8/2002
Rep Hefley, Joel - 10/8/2002
Rep Hilleary, Van - 10/8/2002
Rep Holden, Tim - 10/8/2002
Rep Horn, Stephen - 10/8/2002
Rep Hyde, Henry J. - 10/8/2002
Rep Israel, Steve - 10/8/2002
Rep Issa, Darrell E. - 10/8/2002
Rep Jenkins, William L. - 10/8/2002
Rep Johnson, Sam - 10/8/2002
Rep Keller, Ric - 10/8/2002
Rep Kerns, Brian D. - 10/8/2002
Rep Kingston, Jack - 10/8/2002
Rep Kirk, Mark Steven - 10/8/2002
Rep Knollenberg, Joe - 10/9/2002
Rep Kolbe, Jim - 10/8/2002
Rep Lantos, Tom - 10/8/2002
Rep Lewis, Jerry - 10/8/2002
Rep Linder, John - 10/8/2002
Rep Lucas, Ken - 10/8/2002
Rep McCrery, Jim - 10/8/2002
Rep McHugh, John M. - 10/8/2002
Rep McInnis, Scott - 10/8/2002
Rep McKeon, Howard P. (Buck) - 10/8/2002
Rep McNulty, Michael R. - 10/8/2002
Rep Miller, Dan - 10/8/2002
Rep Miller, Gary G. - 10/8/2002
Rep Miller, Jeff - 10/8/2002
Rep Myrick, Sue - 10/8/2002
Rep Ney, Robert W. - 10/9/2002
Rep Northup, Anne M. - 10/8/2002
Rep Osborne, Tom - 10/8/2002
Rep Oxley, Michael G. - 10/8/2002
Rep Pence, Mike - 10/8/2002
Rep Peterson, John E. - 10/8/2002
Rep Phelps, David D. - 10/8/2002
Rep Pickering, Charles W. (Chip) - 10/8/2002
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. - 10/8/2002
Rep Platts, Todd Russell - 10/9/2002
Rep Pombo, Richard W. - 10/8/2002
Rep Portman, Rob - 10/8/2002
Rep Pryce, Deborah - 10/8/2002
Rep Putnam, Adam H. - 10/8/2002
Rep Radanovich, George - 10/8/2002
Rep Riley, Bob - 10/8/2002
Rep Roemer, Tim - 10/8/2002
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 10/8/2002
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana - 10/8/2002
Rep Ross, Mike - 10/8/2002
Rep Roukema, Marge - 10/8/2002
Rep Royce, Edward R. - 10/8/2002
Rep Ryun, Jim - 10/8/2002
Rep Sandlin, Max - 10/8/2002
Rep Saxton, Jim - 10/8/2002
Rep Schrock, Edward L. - 10/8/2002
Rep Sessions, Pete - 10/8/2002
Rep Shadegg, John B. - 10/8/2002
Rep Shays, Christopher - 10/8/2002
Rep Shuster, Bill - 10/8/2002
Rep Simpson, Michael K. - 10/8/2002
Rep Skeen, Joe - 10/8/2002
Rep Smith, Christopher H. - 10/8/2002
Rep Smith, Nick - 10/8/2002
Rep Stenholm, Charles W. - 10/8/2002
Rep Stump, Bob - 10/8/2002
Rep Sweeney, John E. - 10/8/2002
Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. - 10/8/2002
Rep Thornberry, Mac - 10/8/2002
Rep Thune, John R. - 10/8/2002
Rep Turner, Jim - 10/8/2002
Rep Vitter, David - 10/8/2002
Rep Watts, J. C., Jr. - 10/8/2002
Rep Weldon, Dave - 10/8/2002
Rep Wicker, Roger F. - 10/8/2002
Rep Wilson, Joe - 10/8/2002
Rep Young, C. W. Bill - 10/8/2002
Rep Young, Don - 10/8/2002

Unless I am wrong.

Kuchinich - but he's safe from being on that list ;-)

This will answer some questions people had and hopefully clear some confusions.

Evan Bayh, John Edwards, and Tim Johnson.

Should we stop rooting for Senator Johnson to get better? :(

On Edit: Yes, I know that Lieberman and Landrieu are also Dems - but they can't disappoint me because I don't expect anything from them.

I believe the OP was about a potential reward - such as a vote to make them POTUS. I wouldn't give that to Tim Johnson either if he ran, but yeah - get well, Tim!

explaining to do and apologizing.

We could be throwing our best candidate under the bus because of a mistake made by a rookie Senator in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT political environment.

If you are seeking a PERFECT person to be President, good luck, because NOBODY IS PERFECT. But I wish you well in your search.

He made a colosal "mistake" (calling it that to be charitable) - pushing for BFEE's most disastruous move .
You call him a rookie senator - as supposed to today's what? "Seasoned candidate?"
Isn't the public record of any candidate what we use to decide how good a candidate one is? Should I go by photo ops instead? Cuz, in that case, "Mishun Accomplished" beats "NOLA announcement" hands down - and we have the best man in the White House!

Records be damned. Thinking is hard. Let's just follow the buzz.

People who have read the ISG Report, Bob Woodwards State of Denial, and who is currently reading Thomas Ricks Fiasco.

People who regularly watch CSPAN.

People who have attending anti war protests.

People who volunteered to elect Dem candidates.

Just amazing.

Just fucking absolutely amazing.

s* I am posting on them)
For the record, Bob Woodward is big on my shit list.
I am however a member of the last groups you are listing so....HUH?:wtf:

Who just catches the latest buzz on whats popular without thinking.

Obviously that is not the case.

That vote had consequences and Edwards said he was wrong years after the fact. Others have tortured themselves trying to explain it while Hillary took room on the Bush Bus. Admitting the issue was wrong is only a first step and not a reason to elect somebody president who has a proven record of national security failure.

Robbed you have been missed!:pals:

criticizing * for 'the bad conduct of war" or calling for "reduction of troops". Ending it. Acknowledging that starting it was a disastruos mistake would also help a bit.

Being a co-sponsor of the IWR is just not what I feel comfortable reading on a candidate's resume.

as long has he has just a little bit of Courage!!

he has frankly called it a mistake with bad consequences.

But apparently "someone" is setting such a high standard of behavior for the Dems that even Jesus himself couldn't pass the audition. When we do that we are falling right in line with the Imperial President Myth, and Dems should never do that. Our president is a hardworking real man, not a stainless steel cyborg.

Don't let the people that get paid MILLIONS to cloud our minds be successful at that. We want a president who is human, approachable and accountable--as Clinton was, in the end. And as Bush will never be (or Nixon, or Bush One, or any of their Golden Parachute cronies.)

In a prison cell.

Now, obviously nobody in the congress/senate will be forced to take that much responsibility for their votes.

Still, "mistakes" of this magnitude should not be tolerated. It's very easy to brush this off as a mistake, as we lay down comfortably in our homes at night--with food, electricity, schools, and little or no fear of being blown to bits as we sleep.

At the very least, we should send the message that political posturing at a time when hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake will be an automatic disqualification from future presidential races.

This war has no end in site. Where is the compassion for the wounded and dead troops, or for the close to 1 million dead Iraqis?

maybe someday you too will be a fallible human and understand. Till then, only the purest may apply.

Following this line of reasoning, I suggest we lose Obama, a lousy smoker in the pocket literally of RJ Reynolds--or rather, vice versa. That habit disqualifies him in my eyes.



On another note, may I just say the IWR was nuanced, and that Shrubbie violated the terms of the agreement by not going for the authorizing vote at the UN (as he promised) so the signers of the IWR cannot be held responsible for the way the Prince misused them. Sure, they look bad, but so do we all for allowing the jerk to take office on the wings of a lie and a partisan vote in the SCOTUS.

Gotta sword?

Personally, I'm not a 'one issue' voter. I'd need to take everything about a person into consideration, his sponsorship of this bill included. But he wouldn't hang for it, so to speak.

Period.

His nephew was killed over there a couple of months ago.

YEAs ---77
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

Nays
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)


Senate Votes

In the House - Waxman, Lantos, and Murtha voted for the resolution.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

was a step further than merely voting.

it's ignorance like this that makes it so hard for a good active senator to move into the presidency

Who cares how it started right?
Also, without conceding that Edwards was a good senator(hell, he co-sponsored IWR and write the Patriot Act!), what's the public good benefit of good active senators moving into presidency?
Why do you assume that his career aspirations are somehow in the national interest?

* would have invaded w. or w.out it, as it actually calls that other alternatives be investigated first, before any invasion -- alternatives that bushco did not allow to take place

the IWR did not cause or start the war, it was pretty much a piece of paper

if you think breaux or landrieu bad senators who would make bad presidents, i would have to disagree

if you think edwards is a bad senator who would make a bad president, the only word that springs to my mind is "delusional," he is one of the few willing to speak out for the little guy, some others doing the same are too old (kennedy) or too weird (kucinich) to be presidents in any real world scenario

i don't think we should be kicking one of the best friends we have, in the teeth, over a piece of paper that meant nothing in the scheme of things

bushco was invading iraq w. or w.out that piece of paper

rubber stamp/legitimize his already put in execution plans to attack the country. Powell helped sell this to the UN (or rather to the stupid American public), those 16 helped sell it to congress+ stupid American public.
My point is, the sponsors ACTIVELY helped BFEE push on us that war was good. They helped start it (as opposed to those just voting on it who only helped legitimize it)

The "alternatives" were negated in Section 3 (a):

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

That's the only sentence that matters. A blank check, pure and simple.

The Dems had the majority in October 2002 and could have forced Bush to start the war using a national security directive.
The Democratic Party could be untouched by this nightmare fiasco, if only the yes voters had joined Kennedy, Byrd et al.

Edwards seems like a good guy, but co-sponsoring the IWR will be an insurmountable obstacle.
Sometimes a roll of the political dice will come up snake eyes. Sadly, that's the result for all the yes-voters.

as for speaking for "the little guy" - we have enough snake oil salesman self appointed to do it. O Really springs to mind. Unless "the little guy" is his own son, I don't get it.
Nothing in Edwards life (as opposed to rhetoric) entitles him to this mantle - it's just more posturing from the "son of the mill worker"
Or as that 'universally respected" Chris Lehane offered "Edwards found a "niche"

It says the President is authorized to use force, and authorized to determine when force is necessary.

It was a blank check, and cowardly.

:silly:

Holy sh*. That right there answers a lot of questions for me.

a firm grasp of recent history. He was unable to debate Cheney when he up and lied. Edwards just looked dumbfounded because heartless talked about a period of 20 years ago. Good man, but he was duped by what appears to be lack of knowledge of history.

cheney was a sweating toad who was considered to have "won" the debate because he did not openly drool on his chin and wear a transmitter on his back a la bush

edwards did fine, as we would expect of a trial lawyer

however, the bar is set unfairly low for them (doesn't drool = terrific grasp of history and current events for the GOP) and unfairly high for ours

i'm just tired of it all


the number of posts attacking edwards seems almost like a coordinated attack to me and i don't appreciate it frankly -- i don't believe you are attacking edwards, just giving your own honest opinion, but some of the thread starters i dunno, i think they believe the best way to get their guy ahead is to pull down the other candidates, and i'm sick of the circular firing squad

It does all seem to be rather coordinated, doesn't it? But it really isn't all that effective in the long run.

I want someone who has the courage to stand up and do/say the right thing when it's unpopular. Not only that, but their rush to appease Bush & Co. now makes it harder for us to charge W* with war crimes and impeach the bastard.

This war is criminal, and the death toll is tremendous. An "apology" is not enough. People are dead. A nation is destroyed. Our credibility is almost gone. Oooops... no, I don't think so. You will be lucky if you don't get prison time in a cell beside Bush.

regarding his stand on the IWR, to run Kerry/Edwards, who BOTH voted for the resolution.

The problem is ELECTING someone who will go forward and get us the hell out of Iraq. Hillary thinks we should send MORE troops.

Clark? A lot of people on this board like him. I don't like his association with the Clintons, and I believe he's even less nimble on his feet than Edwards. Sorry.

Vilsack? He's going to have a very hard time getting off the ground unless he can gain attention for an issue.

Obama? I think he has the right instincts, but, frankly, I think he could use more seasoning.

Gore? Hands down my favorite choice. But every day that goes by it seems he's less likely to get in the race. I don't blame him. My God, the man won the election in 2000 and had it taken away by the Supreme Court! And the same shitty argument was offered "go away for the good of the country" that is being thrown around to justify Ford's pardon of Nixon.

Leaves me with Edwards. I was a Deaniac in 04 (actually since Jan 03)
and his treatment of Dean angered me. You know what? I have forgiven him. And I think he has the best chance of winning. I don't like all his positions (particularly on the fence about gay marriage, but that could help him in the south) but I could support him.

I think it's time to talk about forgiveness and moving forward.



PS--I know I forgot Kucinich. I really like and agree with most of his positions. But, I'm sorry--he doesn't have the political savvy to carry
enough states to even make it a contest.

when you say, "Clark? A lot of people on this board like him. I don't like his association with the Clintons"

Like being "associated" with the Clintons (whatever that means) is somehow a deal breaker, but co-sponsoring the IWR ain't? :crazy:

Guess you've got "priorities" in some kind of order that's odd in my book.

Guess Gore shouldn't bother to run either (although you say that he's your favorite), cause after all, he was Clinton's VP for 8 fucking years!...... :eyes:

I still say she is taking up a seat that should be occupied by a Democrat.

wasn't he dead by 2002 ?

and evne if he wasn't, how the fuck did he co sponser anything then ??

tell you that!