State Department: 2002 Iraq Vote Justifies Continued US Presence in Iraq
EmailABC News’ Kirit Radia Reports: The 2002 congressional authorization for the use of military force in Iraq, voted for by presidential hopefuls Senators Hilary Clinton, D-N.Y., and John McCain, R-Ariz., — and opposed by Senator Barack Obama, D-Ill., who was not in the Senate at the time — could be used to justify a continued U.S. presence in Iraq once the current United Nations mandate expires, according to an explanation provided to lawmakers by the State Department.
In a letter, obtained by ABC News, Ambassador David Satterfield, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s top Iraq advisor, argues the October 2002 vote justifies continued operations in Iraq once the current UN resolution authorizing troop presence expires at the end of the year.
The letter to Rep Ackerman, D-N.Y., Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, says the administration would not need to seek additional approval from Congress in order to continue the US military presence in Iraq.
"Whether or not the authorization for the Multi-National Force in Iraq in United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1790 (2007) is extended, the US military has the authority to continue its mission beyond the end of this year under laws passed by Congress and the President’s authority as Commander in Chief under the Constitution. Congress expressly authorized the use of force to "defend the national security of the United States against continuing threat posed by Iraq" as well as to enforce all relevant UNSCRs concerning Iraq," Satterfield wrote. "Congress expressly authorized the use of force to ‘defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.’"
"Congress also has authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against nations, organizations, or persons involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, "in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States" by those same entities," Satterfield added noting that when President Bush authorized military action in Iraq in 2003 he determined that military actions in Iraq were "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."
Satterfield’s response is sure to re-ignite debate on Capitol Hill over whether the administration will need to seek another vote from Congress to continue military action in Iraq. Numerous votes to halt US actions in Iraq in the past year have failed and Democrats continue to scramble for a way out of the conflict.
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
No Way!!
Support the Troops; Bring them HOME!
Veterans for Obama
Posted by: Jackt51 | March 5, 2008, 6:21 pm 6:21 pm
This is Barack Obama’s “ace in the hole” against BOTH of his smack-talking opponents!
One of many, I might add….
Posted by: adam | March 5, 2008, 6:41 pm 6:41 pm
Yeah, right,
Obama wasn’t there to vote.
Obama says he doesn’t know for sure how he would have voted.
Obama has voted to fund the war in Iraq since he was elected as US Senator.
If that was my ace in the hole, I would call for a new deck.
Posted by: ken | March 5, 2008, 6:55 pm 6:55 pm
Ken, Obama has made it clear it was against the invasion and he made it part of his political mantra. Hillary has not read the NIE before voting and now she is seeing the consequences of her vote. Obama said he will never let down the troops therefore he has to vote to support them. Let us not be blind by our support for Hillary who will not be a good nominee and cannot face McCain with who she has always voted in the same way.
Posted by: BKMC | March 5, 2008, 7:03 pm 7:03 pm
Well said, BKMC. Well said indeed.
Posted by: adam | March 5, 2008, 7:12 pm 7:12 pm
Not to mention that she supported Bush on Iran and skipped the vote to stop immunity for telcoms cooperating with Bush/Cheney illegal eavesdropping.
Barack Obama — Yes, WE CAN!!!
Posted by: Jackt51 | March 5, 2008, 7:25 pm 7:25 pm
Initially, BKMC,
I have not decided to vote for Hillary Clinton. I have not decided to vote for John McCain. I have decided I cannot vote for Barak Obama, so I may have to leave that portion of the ballot blank or write in a candidate. I am an independent voter with no Democratic or Republican ties. Whatever I do with my vote, the state I live in (Kansas) will go Republican, so my decision is of little consequence.
With regard to Afghanistan, I have little regard for the Senator Obama’s action regarding that conflict versus his rhetoric. Senator Obama did not even take time to call a single meeting of the Senate oversight committee of which he was appointed chairman. In a year’s time, I have to believe that enough time could have been allocated to call at least one meeting.
And, before the whining posts begin about the negligence of Senator Clinton or any other Senator, the actions, or lack thereof, by any other Senator does not excuse the same or worse behavior from another Senator, including Barak Obama.
Beginning a Presidential campaign simply is not an acceptable excuse for dereliction of duty to the men and women who serve in the armed forces. I live about 30 miles from a major Army base. It is my privilege to regularly shoot and hunt with retired and active duty soldiers. The men I know are not impressed with either of the Democratic candidates’ professed support for the military. Neither am I.
The war against terrorism in Afghanistan has been less than successful, not because Senator Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq with a statement, but because no Senator (including Obama) has made a definitive move to improve the situation unless you call baseless rhetoric definitive.
Senator Obama and others in Washington have had the power and the position that would have allowed them to at least attempt to engage in action instead of opting to politicize a call for viable support and action.
Once again, they have not.
And, don’t take this the wrong way. These blogs have a way of making statements of position seem like personal attacks. That is not my intent. The only people I take umbrage with are those who have been given the power by voters and choose to squander it for personal gain.
Posted by: ken | March 5, 2008, 7:45 pm 7:45 pm
As for Bush and Iran, Jackt51, I must admit that I am not quite sure of which policy towards Iran you are referring to. We haven’t attacked Iran yet, but I do recall something about Senator Obama theorizing a bombing of Pakistan.
As for skipping votes, how about voting “present?” If I recall correctly, the “present” votes for Senator Obama outnumber the “present” votes for either Senator Clinton or Senator McCain.
Again, no animosity, just observations.
Posted by: ken | March 5, 2008, 7:57 pm 7:57 pm
Well, Ken, observations and 25 cents (well, $4 now) will get you a cup of coffee.
Obama’s “present” votes are a non-issue, except for nitpickers looking for reasons not to vote for the black guy!
Posted by: Jackt51 | March 5, 2008, 8:24 pm 8:24 pm
Is this what she considers 4AM judgement?
I’ll pass thank you…
Posted by: Rob, Indianapolis, IN | March 5, 2008, 8:36 pm 8:36 pm
I’m planning to vote for Obama, not Hillary under any circumstances.
But if this is the attitude that John McCain will take, that the power to conduct military operations is now established permanently with the President…
I can’t vote for the guy – that to me is a violation of the US Constitution and the rights/responsibilities of the Houses of Congress.
This argument means the Congress only has the power to cut funding for the troops in order to stop any further military action there. That’s untenable.
Another argument for Obama – he’s a Constitutional scholar, so we’ll get our “damn piece of paper” back. The members of Congress (not just Hillary), should have read this damn thing better, or had a smart intern read it if they were all too lazy to do it themselves.
Posted by: NeoFeminist | March 5, 2008, 10:45 pm 10:45 pm
NeoFemenist your statement about his being a constitutional law scholar and getting our “piece of paper” back,you are kidding right.This is the same man who had no problem taking 4 million peoples right to vote away in two states.It didnt bother him in the least,the common voters in these states had no control over the date change.Did he stand up and say this is wrong we must find a compromise no not a peep out of him in support of these voters.Honestly tell me if it was you and the date was changed with out your controlling it,would you be as star eyed over your Obama then.
Posted by: girlinvt | March 6, 2008, 12:10 am 12:10 am
Wake up people!
We cannot leave Iraq any time soon. Hillary was right to support the liberation of Iraq. Hillary is right that we need permanent bases in Iraq to use to spread liberty through out the region.
If we leave now and let the terrorists take over, it would set human rights and especially women’s rights back 1000 years.
It’s a dangerous world people and when that phone rings at 3am we desperately need the one answering it to be Hillary.
Posted by: HillarySpeaks4Me | March 6, 2008, 8:48 am 8:48 am
girlinvt…how did Obama take votes away from millions of people? I live in Florida and can tell you neither of them, Hillary or Obama, had any decision on the matter.
HillarySpeaks4Me…Hillary’s intention is to start the process of withdrawal within the first 60 days of her being in office. If she cant make the right decision in the middle of the day, what makes you think 3am will be better.
Posted by: useyourmind | March 6, 2008, 9:53 am 9:53 am
girlinvt – How quick you are to place the fiasco of the FL and MI vote at the feet of Obama… from what I understand the entire decision started with the Republicans and was accepted by the DNC..both candidates signed a piece of paper saying they would follow the Rules that were given to them by the DNC. Neither Obama or Hillary really had a choice in the matter . Hillary chose to break the Rules and put her name on the ballot, Obama simply followed the Rules given to him. I for one think Rules are in place for a reason otherwise we would have even more of this underhanded election fraud. Don’t get me wrong I think their votes should be counted and they are working on it right now to figure out an amicable way to resolve this – but it was not Barack’s or Hillary’s responsibility to resolve it – the people handling it now and that needed to take a stand from the very beginning are the elected officials these states already had put into place.
Posted by: dreamer? | March 6, 2008, 9:59 am 9:59 am
Well girlinvt, bit late …
Obama followed what the DNC had requested the candidates do. Look it up. Sure, now the DNC is trying to fix the screw up they made – but not even Hillary is to blame for it. She may have played dirty, but she didn’t cause this problem. They both agreed to what the DNC’s punishment was at the time. I would be furious if it were me, but I’d put the blame squarely on who was responsible for it.
And I’m not starry-eyed either. I’m looking at a Candidate who had no real information on Iraq, yet figured out it was going to be a total hash job – and one who did have information on Iraq, and didn’t bother to read the resolution or the WMD report thoroughly.
Hillary4me – I have never read that Clinton has said anything about establishing permanent bases in Iraq – even Bush is denying he’s doing so. I haven’t heard McCain say that either.
Posted by: NeoFeminist | March 6, 2008, 12:55 pm 12:55 pm
Well said, Ken. We are “losing” in Afghanistan, our eyes have been taken off the ball (Obama’s quote) and yet he has done nothing about it. How many people have to die before he finds time to hold a meeting? Isn’t he the one claiming his campaign is about the people, not himself? I guess not everyone is buying what he is selling as evidenced by the results of Tuesday night.
Posted by: Jeff | March 6, 2008, 2:42 pm 2:42 pm
ABC News’ Kirit Radia Reports: The 2002 congressional authorization for the use of military force in Iraq,
voted for by presidential hopefuls Senators Hilary Clinton, D-N.Y., and John McCain, R-Ariz.,?????????????? and opposed by Senator Barack Obama.!!!!!!!!!!! In the beginning was the word, and the word was GODobama.
Posted by: RubaDub | March 6, 2008, 2:55 pm 2:55 pm
Ken (and others),
Have you ever been to a war zone??? Have you ever been on a tour of duty or deployment?? I respect and admire John McCain for his service…I am voting for Barack Obama…Why? Because he is a breathe of fresh air…He is not divisive, arrogant and self-serving like Hillary (who will stop at nothing to win her “birth right”)…You all speak a big game, but talk to me when you’ve been there…Barack Obama believes in the troops, veteran affairs, and of course voted for funding b/c it provided us with body armor and other necessities…Walter Reed??? Does that ring a bell??? Just b/c someone puts an advertisement on television & spent 8 years as first lady does not make her capable of “answering the phone”…AND PLEASE don’t feed me the line that I’ve drank the koolaid…I’m well educated, and know the issues…It’s time to give Washington back to the people that it was created for…Of the people, by the people and for the people…just words??
Posted by: OEF Veteran | March 7, 2008, 3:03 am 3:03 am
Again, 77 US Senators voted YES on War to protect your life at all costs without gambling. It was presenting the will of most people at that time. Senator Obama turned the failure of Bush’s execution to end the War soon to accuse his 77 fellows. At 2002, he didn’t even have responsibility and qualification to defend our national security. If it was true if there was chemical and nuclear weapons found in Iraq, did he still oppose it? Definitely not… What a fake…
Posted by: Truth | March 7, 2008, 1:19 pm 1:19 pm
Truth, although you are anything but. Fact. There was no threat to national security about the decision to invade Irag. As was pointed out to Bush at the time, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Of course, he didn’t care. He wanted his war and Hillary enabled him.
Recall that at the time there were a lot of people who who had their misgivings about the rush to war but were too afraid to speak out so as not to be accused of being unpatriotic, and for people like Hillary, so as not to be thought weak on national security. That is the only reason she voted for that resolution. It was a strategic positioning for her shot at the Presidency. She miscalculated badly and now she is losing a lot of votes on that account, and rightly.
You know what is more painfull, it took 20 debates to get her to conceed that the vote was wrong. That is George W. Bush right there.
Posted by: alagbon | March 7, 2008, 11:06 pm 11:06 pm