Talk:Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

Roll Call

Wouldn't it perhaps be less cluttered if we linked to the Roll Call Page for both the Senate and Hosue votes, rather than have massive lists? — Linnwood (☎) 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed. External links were already there. Isaac Pankonin 10:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be a LOT of work done on this. There's really nothing on the resolution itself other than bullet points of rationalizations for war. What about something on the context of when it happened and what about the political consequences of voting for it: particularly anti-war democrats having to justify having voted for the war.

What specific content do you suggest adding to the article, Anonymous? VisitorTalk 06:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

BAD LINK: there are currently (4/11/08) two problems with the link embedded in the text "Iraq War Resolution, Roll Call Vote." 1) The House and Senate both voted on this (obviously), so we should link to BOTH roll call votes. 2) The link currently (4/11/08) doesn't even go to a roll call vote, but instead links to the text of the resolution (a link to the text has already been provided in this same "external links" section, so we needn't worry about that when we correct this error).

Here are the proper links (I plan to make the change, but I wanted to record the information here since I'm just as fallible as the last person... ). House vote = http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2002&rollnumber=455 Senate vote = http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237 Curiosus (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WMDs: Which sources are correct?

This entire article needs to be shut down and rewritten. I came here looking for info on the resolution, not 500 reasons why Bush sucks.

Here are some sources that seem to show that WMDs, as defined by UN Resolution 687, were found in Iraq and that SH had a relationship with Al Queda. They also show that SH was a murderous dictator. This all should be irrelevant because this page should just be about 107-243. The author has clearly written a POV article that might be relevant somewhere else if it wasn't full of many cited, though unsubstantiated, bits of information that do nothing to explain the actual resolution.

Hayes, Stephen F. "Case Closed." The Weekly Standard 009.11 (2003): 1. [1]

"Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves." USAID. 6 May 2008 USAID. 6 May 2008 [2]

"Palestinians get Saddam funds." BBC News. 13 Mar. 2003. 6 May 2008 [3]

"Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found In Iraq." FoxNews.com. 22 June 2006. 6 May 2008 [4]

"Resolution 687." 8 Apr. 1991. 6 May 2008 [5]

CAdamP (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. There are (for all real purposes) an unlimited number of relevant organizations which made a dispassionate case which shows that Saddam Hussein neither had ties to Al Qaeda nor was developing WMDs. Many are listed in the article. Your sources are either examples of the Straw Man tactic or not acceptable as reliable sources. For example take the Fox News story. It does not state that WMDs were found in Iraq. It just says that Republican congressman and Iraq War supporter Rick Santorum believes they were found in Iraq (he is referring to discarded degraded munitions which "may" pose a health risk to its handler if mishandled - an absolutely ridiculous definition for a Weapon of Mass Destruction). Or for example consider the BBC story you posted. It does not claim Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda. It says Saddam Hussein compensated families of Palestinians suicide bombers (another straw-man). The UN resolution you cited doesn't state that Iraq had WMDs in 2003. The Resolution is from 1991. For this reason I am removing the POV label. Poyani (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No weapons of mass destruction

None of the links below support the claim that Iraq could not produce WNDs. They do support the claim that none were found.

Tens of thousands of people died from Iraqi WMDs, Google "Chemical Ali".

I am deleting them for this reason.

   Iraq's WMD Plans Were Preliminary CBS News, January 7, 2004
   Kay: No evidence Iraq stockpiled WMDs CNN, January 26, 2004
   A Spy Speaks Out - Former Top CIA Official On "Faulty" Intelligence Claims CBS, 60 minutes, April 23, 2006
   Drumheller: 'Caught up in the march to war' - Two CIA operatives raise questions about use of pre-war intelligence Hardball, May 3, 2006
   WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications By Joseph Cirincione, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, George Perkovich, with Alexis Orton, Carnegie Endowment Report, January 2004
   In Their Own Words: Iraq's 'Imminent' Threat Center for American Progress, January 29, 2004
   Reports of Bush's Contrition Have Been Greatly Exaggerated Robert Schlesinger, Huffington Post, December 14, 2005

67.169.234.222 (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Both of the above arguments are correct, however it helps to remember that the AUMF made no claims of Iraq possessing WMD at the time of its draft- it stated continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability and its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; and Iraq to be in 'material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' None of which is negated by the failure to find WMD stockpiles.

As well, the claims for Al Qaeda are similarly distorted. Al Qaeda specifically is mentioned as having members in the country, which was true. Saddam is mentioned as supporting international terrorist organizations, which is well documented.

One would hope editors of an article about a specific document could park their POV pushing with enough respect for the intelligence of other editors, to actually use the words of that document and not distort them and display that the distortions were wrong. Batvette (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

RE: Poyani, "Straw man":

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;

The Palestinian Suicide Bomber Bounties you acknowledge the existence of (which included the deaths of 7 Americans). You must have missed that part. Philosophically it was important as a justification for war because after 9/11 Saddam publicly reaffirmed his support and raised the amount of the bounties. We could never prosecute a War on Terrorism, after telling Saddam for 10 years he should stop that, by allowing this to continue. What Saddam was doing was luring the Israelis to harsh reprisals so they killed Palestinian civilians- causing other Arab nations to be enraged with Israel, and thus, the United States, and galvanize the Arab region because of Palestinians's gratitude to Saddam for his support rather than back the sanctions regime against Iraq. Since Al Qaeda cites both the sanctions on Iraq and Israel in their grievances against the US, IMO the possibility of cooperation as the AUMF mentions is not absurd. (the news reports of widespread anti-US/Israel demonstrations in the streets of Arab cities in spring 2002 are evidence Saddam's efforts were successful and likely the initial motivation for his removal) However sticking to the argument of the AUMF's content, that the AUMF links Al Qaeda as being supported by Saddam or Iraq is the only straw man I see here. It mentions members of the group were present in Iraq which was true. Batvette (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Link dead.

The first link in this article (the cspan one) points to a PDF that is no longer available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.87.65 (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that too, and have changed the link to a PDF from the U.S. Government Printing Office. --Spacedoggie (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Move "which Senators voted 'YES'" to "Passage"

The list of Senators who voted 'YES' (currently following the section "The Durbin Amendment") needs to be moved into section "Passage", but should it follow the bullet-point "82 (40%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution", or should it follow "29 of 50 Democratic senators (58%) voted for the resolution", and give those voting against a bullet-point of its own? Clark42 (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

First, I would have loved to have seen such a list. The List of Congressional opponents of the Iraq War doesn't serve that purpose because it mixes the senators in with the rest of congress. Second, since 29 Democrats voted for and only 21 against, it would be easier to absorb the latter than the former. In the case of the Republicans all you need to know is that Lincoln Chaffee was the only Republican senator to vote against. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

deleted material far outside the scope of the article

I deleted a whole section which appeared to be a soapbox for someone's POV about the justification for war, made by presenting straw man points never stated in the AUMF then knocking them down. There are plenty of articles with this material, such as statements made by the Bush administration- I hope I needn't explain why this is irrelevant here in this article. Batvette (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Iraq Resolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707020942/http://www.asil.org/insigh88.cfm to http://www.asil.org/insigh88.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809115028/http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-1266-01A.pdf to http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-1266-01A.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060516140700/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930111604/http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr100802.htm to http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr100802.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Contents: "none licit", etc.

Regarding the use of "none licit statement" and "licit statement", and "none licit statement, requires proof positive" are these intended to be editors commentary or are they a legal term? This appears messy and nonsensical without context. SwimmingNaked (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. They seem like nonsentical, incorrect commentary by an editor. "None licit" is not a standing expression nor even proper latin. I can only assume that he meant "non licet", i.e. "not permissible", but it is messy and I cannot see how it might have been meant. As no source, summary, or reasoning was given, I have reverted the edit. 91.66.245.59 (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)