Iraq War Resolution

[BillyBob]

Seemed like a good day to re post this. :BillyBob:





IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; 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;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
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 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.
(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 joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

[BillyBob]

:banana:

[elected4ever]

A resolution is not law.It authorizes nothing.

[taoist]

But I see we've found the WMD ... look, they're all over that joint resolution. Brings a whole new meaning to "joint." Wonder what that res would look like with the WMD's stripped out of it.

[taoist]

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

(WMD deleted)

(WMD deleted)

(WMD deleted)

(WMD deleted)

(WMD deleted)

(WMD deleted)

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; 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;

(WMD deleted)

(WMD deleted)

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

(WMD deleted)

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Wow, gutted it.

Bringing me back to my original objections. Whatever valid reasons there might have been for attacking Irak, they were even more valid for going after the real terrorists in Saudi Arabia.

Fifteen of nineteen 9/11 hijackers ... I'm not taking my eye off of that. And no joint resolution hyping WMDs that didn't exist is gonna distract me from it, either. This administration shot ALL of our cannons and missed the target. And now we've got no cannons left.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by taoist

But I see we've found the WMD ... look, they're all over that joint resolution. Brings a whole new meaning to "joint." Wonder what that res would look like with the WMD's stripped out of it.

Here's all you need:

(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.

[drbrumley]

Iraq didnt do none of the above.

Planned 9/11? No
Authorized 9/11? No
Committed 9/11? No
Aided 9/11? No

Wow Billy, this RESOLUTION got 4 strikes. :think:

[taoist]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Here's all you need:

You bet, that's plenty enough for us to have invaded.

Now, invaded whom?

Saudi Arabia -- FIFTEEN of NINETEEN.
Iraq -- ZERO of NINETEEN

Do the math, Billy.

"Keep your eyes, on the prize, hold on."

[Morpheus]

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/mirror/nov2004/1/0/000ADF94-E181-1189-B6E080BFB6FA0000.jpg

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Iraq didnt do none of the above.

Planned 9/11? No
Authorized 9/11? No
Committed 9/11? No
Aided 9/11? No

Wow Billy, this RESOLUTION got 4 strikes. :think:

I thought you could read better than e4e, Doc. Let me help.

(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 word is including, not exclusively. :doh:


Besides, we all know Saddam had WMD. The New York Times just today published an article proving it.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by taoist

You bet, that's plenty enough for us to have invaded.

Now, invaded whom?

Saudi Arabia -- FIFTEEN of NINETEEN.
Iraq -- ZERO of NINETEEN



Read my post to Doc. You guys seem to be having trouble reading today.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Besides, we all know Saddam had WMD. The New York Times just today published an article proving it. Yeah, and the Russians smuggled them all off in ambulances to Syria, and the Bush Administration is too chicken to go after them about it.

And yes, BB, Choosing not to pick a fight with someone who stands a better than even chance of kicking your tail up around your ears is chicken behavior...

[Frank Ernest]

Yo, :BillyBob:!

You sure stirred up the :loser:s in a hurry. :darwinsm:

[BillyBob]

Gosh, all I did was prove them wrong! :angel:

[BillyBob]

For the record, I don't consider any of the guys posting in this thread as losers. I actually consider them friends......[e4e is teetering] :chuckle:

[Frank Ernest]

Perhaps advancing age has lowered my tolerance level. :D

[BillyBob]

Well, I know Doc and e4e from our Fantasy Football league, we have a friendly relationship there. And I've known taoist for a while, he's a decent guy. We all get along fine when we're not talking politics.

[BillyBob]

Besides, you've almost 20 more years according to the Death Clock! Maybe by then Halle Berry will be more accessable! :eek:

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Gosh, all I did was prove them wrong! :angel:

Hardly.

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Well, I know Doc and e4e from our Fantasy Football league, we have a friendly relationship there. And I've known taoist for a while, he's a decent guy. We all get along fine when we're not talking politics. :thumb:

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Yo, :BillyBob:!

You sure stirred up the :loser:s in a hurry. :darwinsm:

Mr Gullible,

Stick it.

[taoist]

I've only got two ... but at least I'll outlive Poly.

To tell you the truth, I really don't care for discussing politics with liberals ... debate is BORING when everybody agrees.

Now, back to the fun of whomping on a topic where we don't agree.

"Includes," sure, and they just needed to fill out that resolution with a couple more paragraphs to make the pages come out neat and pretty. Didn't really have anything specific to do with the Iraqis at all. Sheesh! That 9/11 reference, along with all the hoopla and the administration's carefully orchestrated ambiguous references to "We were attacked" without quite specifying by whom is why a third of America STILL thinks the hijackers were Iraqis!

15 of 19 were Saudis. 0 of 19 were Iraqis.

It can't be said often enough. The terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, were financed by Saudi Arabia, received their religious indoctrination from Saudi Arabia. The 19 pages excluded from the pubic view in that first 9/11 report were about Saudi Arabia. The president standing up and saying we couldn't release it for national security reasons was standing up behind the ambassador for Saudi Arabia. We should have invaded Saudi Arabia.

Have you checked the force structure lately, Billy? How many brigades do you think we still have uncommitted to take out the guys who attacked us by proxy on September 11? About the same as the number of Iraqis hijacking planes into the WTTs and the Pentagon.

I'm not usually a vengeance kind of guy. But I want payback on this one. Okay, so maybe we can't find what cave bin Laden is hiding in. But we sure as hell know where to find Saudi Arabia. And make them pay, dammit.

[drbrumley]

Hey Tao,

Our support of Saudi Arabia, in spite of its ties to al Qaeda through financing and training, is totally ignored by those obsessed with going to war against Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the furthest thing from a democracy. As a matter of fact, if democratic elections were permitted, the Saudi government would be overthrown by a bin Laden ally.Cite (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr012903.htm)

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by taoist

"Includes," sure, and they just needed to fill out that resolution with a couple more paragraphs to make the pages come out neat and pretty.

Huh?

Didn't really have anything specific to do with the Iraqis at all.

The Iraqi War Resolution didn't have anything to do with Iraq?

Sheesh! That 9/11 reference, along with all the hoopla and the administration's carefully orchestrated ambiguous references to "We were attacked" without quite specifying by whom is why a third of America STILL thinks the hijackers were Iraqis!

I have never met a single person who thinks that. That number is yet another fabrication of the liberal media and it's masters, the democrat party.


15 of 19 were Saudis. 0 of 19 were Iraqis.

So? You are trying to combine two seperate things.



It can't be said often enough. The terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, were financed by Saudi Arabia, received their religious indoctrination from Saudi Arabia.

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, The Saudi's kicked him out of their country.

The 19 pages excluded from the pubic view in that first 9/11 report were about Saudi Arabia. The president standing up and saying we couldn't release it for national security reasons was standing up behind the ambassador for Saudi Arabia. We should have invaded Saudi Arabia.

We can't invade every terrorist country at once.



Have you checked the force structure lately, Billy? How many brigades do you think we still have uncommitted to take out the guys who attacked us by proxy on September 11?

I don't know, how many troops do we currently have in Afghanistan?

About the same as the number of Iraqis hijacking planes into the WTTs and the Pentagon.

Doc will tell you that there was no plane crashing into the Pentagon.


I'm not usually a vengeance kind of guy. But I want payback on this one. Okay, so maybe we can't find what cave bin Laden is hiding in. But we sure as hell know where to find Saudi Arabia. And make them pay, dammit.

I'm OK with that. What do you suggest?

[Poly]

Originally posted by taoist

I've only got two ... but at least I'll outlive Poly.



So far I'm still alive and kicking.

Of course I still have a little over 2 hours till March 14th, 2005 is officially over. :noid:

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by Poly

So far I'm still alive and kicking.

Of course I still have a little over 2 hours till March 14th, 2005 is officially over. :noid:

:crackup: Just sit at your computer for the next 2 hours and you should be ok. LOL!!!!

[taoist]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Huh?

The Iraqi War Resolution didn't have anything to do with Iraq?

I was being sarcastic. You misplaced that "sheesh" when you quoted me.

I have never met a single person who thinks that. That number is yet another fabrication of the liberal media and it's masters, the democrat party.

The truly liberal media bashes the democrats nearly as hard as they bash the republicans. Once before, you challenged me to show a poll wasn't biased, if you remember. But this time, you've got a better position. When I say "a third" rather than an actual figure, I'm speaking of a source I can't remember so I can't look it up.

But even you admitted previously the PIPA figures were unbiased. Billy, 'tween the two of us, only one of us has ever had his job dependent on being able to check the accuracy of polling. Going back to the "liberal media fabrication" stage is unwarranted. Anecdotal evidence from your circle of friends is no substitute for a random-sample-selected, political-party-weighted, scientific poll by a nonpartisan opinion research institute.

Reminds me of a gal from Winnetka who wrote a letter to the editor of the Chicago Tribune I can still chuckle about. She just couldn't believe that Clinton had won because she didn't know anyone who didn't vote republican.

So? You are trying to combine two seperate things.

I think not.

The justifications for the Iraqi invasion were intimately linked with perceptions of the regime's links with 9/11. I'm ex-military and not afraid of war, but, dammit, sending our troops to fight the wrong battle offends me. Doing so by deceiving Americans about the real risk while hyping a substitute pisses me off.

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, The Saudi's kicked him out of their country.

And his family disowned him, yada yada. Even you don't believe that. Afghanistan, land of Saudi-financed madrassas, right next to Pakistan, land of Saudi-financed madrassas. Sure, they felt enough heat to kick him out, but they never stopped supporting him. What do you think was in those 19 pages, Billy?

We can't invade every terrorist country at once.

That's the closest I can come to what the administration is thinking. They want a staging ground near but not too near the Saudis. The thing is, I don't really know why we're protecting them. The cynic in me says it's to cozy up to critical oil resources on behalf of american corporate oil interests. But there's no reason we couldn't take control of those oil fields the same way we're taking control of the Iraqi's.

I don't know, how many troops do we currently have in Afghanistan?

15,000 the last time I checked. Do you think we should pull them out and put them on a different mission? We've got a lot more than that in Korea, but I'd never suggested pulling them away from keeping an eye on Adolf Kim.

Doc will tell you that there was no plane crashing into the Pentagon.

My buddy John, working two blocks from the White House that morning with a full view of the Pentagon across the river, says otherwise. Take your tongue out of your cheek, redneck.

I'm OK with that. What do you suggest?

Cripes, I don't have dozens of briefers and the CIA working on planning for me. But I'd start out by leaning on them with everything I've got to get them to set up national elections. Then demand they turn over those Wahabi mullahs putting out the hate-America sermons every Friday afternoon. And then maybe a few cruise missiles on selected targets.

Give them a reason to fear us more than they fear internal strife.

Or just nuke 'em.

Just kidding. Kinda.

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by taoist

My buddy John, working two blocks from the White House that morning with a full view of the Pentagon across the river, says otherwise. Take your tongue out of your cheek, redneck.





Tao,

In defense of BillyBob on this one issue. I did say that I have never seen the plane. There was still camera shot of something hitting the Pentegon, but it did not look like any Boeing Jetliner I have ever seen. And of course, it's blurry as heck so you cant really make it out. I'm not saying a Boeing didnt hit the Pentgon, Im saying I never seen it. If your buddy actually saw the Boeing hit the Pentegon, I will defer to him as he would be an eyewitness. Did he in fact see a Boeing Jetliner hit the Pentegon?

[taoist]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Huh?

The Iraqi War Resolution didn't have anything to do with Iraq?

I was being sarcastic. You misplaced that "sheesh" when you quoted me.

I have never met a single person who thinks that. That number is yet another fabrication of the liberal media and it's masters, the democrat party.

The truly liberal media bashes the democrats nearly as hard as they bash the republicans. Once before, you challenged me to show a poll wasn't biased, if you remember. But this time, you started from a better position. When I said "a third" rather than an actual figure, I was speaking of a source I couldn't remember.

You can bet on this one, Billy. It's a Harris poll done between Feb 8 and Feb 13 of this year. As per my usual, when I can't remember the exact number, I tend to go with a low-ball figure, just to be conservative. I thought I'd heard 40-some percent, so to keep within significant digits, I said a third.

Iraq, 9/11, Al Qaeda and Weapons of Mass Destruction:
What the Public Believes Now, According to Latest Harris Poll (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=544)
44 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis (up significantly from 37% in November).

Even you admitted previously the PIPA figures I quoted were unbiased. Billy, 'tween the two of us, only one of us has ever had his job dependent on being able to check the accuracy of polling. Going back to the "liberal media fabrication" stage is unwarranted. Anecdotal evidence from your circle of friends is no substitute for a random-sample-selected, political-party-weighted, scientific poll by a nonpartisan opinion research institute.

Reminds me of a gal from Winnetka who wrote a letter to the editor of the Chicago Tribune I can still chuckle about. She just couldn't believe that Clinton had won because she didn't know anyone who didn't vote republican.

So? You are trying to combine two seperate things.

I think not.

The justifications for the Iraqi invasion were intimately linked with perceptions of the regime's links with 9/11. I'm ex-military and not afraid of war, but, dammit, sending our troops to fight the wrong battle offends me. Doing so by deceiving Americans about the real risk while hyping a substitute pisses me off.

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, The Saudi's kicked him out of their country.

And his family disowned him, yada yada. Even you don't believe that. Afghanistan, land of Saudi-financed madrassas, right next to Pakistan, land of Saudi-financed madrassas. Sure, they felt enough heat to kick him out, but they never stopped supporting him. What do you think was in those 19 pages, Billy?

We can't invade every terrorist country at once.

That's the closest I can come to what the administration is thinking. They want a staging ground near but not too near the Saudis. The thing is, I don't really know why we're protecting them. The cynic in me says it's to cozy up to critical oil resources on behalf of american corporate oil interests. But there's no reason we couldn't take control of those oil fields the same way we're taking control of the Iraqi's.

I don't know, how many troops do we currently have in Afghanistan?

15,000 the last time I checked. Do you think we should pull them out and put them on a different mission? We've got a lot more than that in Korea, but I'd never suggested pulling them away from keeping an eye on Adolf Kim.

Doc will tell you that there was no plane crashing into the Pentagon.

My buddy John, working two blocks from the White House that morning with a full view of the Pentagon across the river, says otherwise. Take your tongue out of your cheek, redneck.

I'm OK with that. What do you suggest?

Cripes, I don't have dozens of briefers and the CIA working on planning for me. But I'd start out by leaning on them with everything I've got to get them to set up national elections. Then demand they turn over those Wahabi mullahs putting out the hate-America sermons every Friday afternoon. And then maybe a few cruise missiles on selected targets.

Give them a reason to fear us more than they fear internal strife.

Or just nuke 'em.

Just kidding. Kinda.

[taoist]

Sorry, Billy, I'm not up to running through the DoD website looking for exact figures.

From Afghanistan News.net (http://www.afghannews.net/index.php?action=show&type=news&id=2158)

There are some 18,000 U.S.-led troops hunting Taliban and al Qaeda remnants in the south and east of the country, and over 8,000 NATO-led peacekeepers deployed largely in Kabul and parts of the north and west. The Afghan army numbers around 22,000.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by taoist

I was being sarcastic. You misplaced that "sheesh" when you quoted me.

Not deliberately.



But even you admitted previously the PIPA figures were unbiased. Billy, 'tween the two of us, only one of us has ever had his job dependent on being able to check the accuracy of polling.

How many of us has ever had a job dependant exclusively upon ones own devises, risks and talents without any pre-existing format or structure? [not sure exactly why that seemed apllicable, maybe just a cheap shot on my part]

Going back to the "liberal media fabrication" stage is unwarranted. Anecdotal evidence from your circle of friends is no substitute for a random-sample-selected, political-party-weighted, scientific poll by a nonpartisan opinion research institute.

I simply don't buy it.



Reminds me of a gal from Winnetka who wrote a letter to the editor of the Chicago Tribune I can still chuckle about. She just couldn't believe that Clinton had won because she didn't know anyone who didn't vote republican.

There are plenty of stupid people out there, but Bush never claimed that Saddam was responsible for the 9-11 attacks, contrary to the liberal revisionists claim.

Sir, I charge you with deliberately obfuscating history [in a fun sort of way]. There were over a dozen UN Resolutions against Saddam before 9-11. Clinton launched missles at Iraq before 9-11. Political leaders, American and international, Republican and Democrat all agreed that Saddam had WMD before 9-11. There was a war in 1991 in which Saddam was given ultimatums to abide by and which he did not, long before 9-11. I can go on, but I'm sure you get my point.



I think not.

The justifications for the Iraqi invasion were intimately linked with perceptions of the regime's links with 9/11.

See above. Besides, it is well known that Saddam was a terrorist and had ties with Al Queda, even the 9-11 Commission said so. On top of that, I thought the reason you guys keep touting is that Bush invaded Iraq because of WMD and he deliberately lied about it!

Which is it, Bush invaded Iraq because of imaginary WMD or because of imaginary links to 9-11????? I can't keep up with the ever changing stories around here! :bang:

I'm ex-military

Thank you for your service! :sam:

and not afraid of war, but, dammit, sending our troops to fight the wrong battle offends me. Doing so by deceiving Americans about the real risk while hyping a substitute pisses me off.

Iraq was not the wrong battle. A terroist has been captured. Oil money will no longer support terrorism. 25 million people were liberated from a mad butcher. 25 million people recently had an opportunity to vote in a free election. Syria is backing out of Lebanon. Lybia willingly handed over its WMD. Rape and Torture rooms are closed. The Saudi's are holding elections.... etc., etc., etc......



And his family disowned him, yada yada. Even you don't believe that.

You have evidence to the contrary? The Saudis booted him [bin Laden] out of the country.


Afghanistan, land of Saudi-financed madrassas, right next to Pakistan, land of Saudi-financed madrassas. Sure, they felt enough heat to kick him out, but they never stopped supporting him. What do you think was in those 19 pages, Billy?

I'm not saying that the Saudis are our friends, as far as I'm concerned, no Muslims are our friends.



That's the closest I can come to what the administration is thinking. They want a staging ground near but not too near the Saudis. The thing is, I don't really know why we're protecting them. The cynic in me says it's to cozy up to critical oil resources on behalf of american corporate oil interests. But there's no reason we couldn't take control of those oil fields the same way we're taking control of the Iraqi's.

I have no problem with that.



15,000 the last time I checked. Do you think we should pull them out and put them on a different mission? We've got a lot more than that in Korea, but I'd never suggested pulling them away from keeping an eye on Adolf Kim.

No, I don't think we should pull them out. I was simply responding to your question regarding how many troops we have deployed in the country which was responsible for the 9-11 attacks.



My buddy John, working two blocks from the White House that morning with a full view of the Pentagon across the river, says otherwise.

I never had any doubt.

Take your tongue out of your cheek, redneck.

I am being serious, there are posters here who do not believe that a plane was flown into the Pentagon. It seemed worth mentioning......



Cripes, I don't have dozens of briefers and the CIA working on planning for me.

Fair enough.

But I'd start out by leaning on them with everything I've got to get them to set up national elections.

They are currently doing that!!!

Then demand they turn over those Wahabi mullahs putting out the hate-America sermons every Friday afternoon. And then maybe a few cruise missiles on selected targets.

Give them a reason to fear us more than they fear internal strife.

Or just nuke 'em.

Just kidding. Kinda.

Nukes seem to be a popular solution lately......

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by taoist

Sorry, Billy, I'm not up to running through the DoD website looking for exact figures.

From Afghanistan News.net (http://www.afghannews.net/index.php?action=show&type=news&id=2158)

Thanks, tao. The point being that we have not dropped the ball looking for bin Laden or fighting any terrorist ressurection in Afghanistan.

[taoist]

Well, Billy, for the record I don't know whether Iraq was the wrong target, but a critical analysis of the news available to me says that regime was no higher than fourth place on the list of dominos. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran were all many times more complicit in 9/11. The administration may know things I don't or can't infer, but if so, it's my country and my government and I deserve to be told the real reasons we didn't take out the obvious target.

It's not King George, it's President George. He's heading a democracy. A well-informed public is the sin qua non
of our system of government if we don't want to fall under tyranny. Everywhere I turn looking at public information I run into Saudi Arabia first and foremost. And every time I look to the administration, I see this fact deliberately obscured. "We were attacked." "We can't forget the lessons of 9/11."

Yes, we were, by Saudi Arabia. No, I won't and I'll keep demanding we own up to the number one lesson -- Saudi Arabia is the house of our enemy. Come on, Billy, we weren't attacked by Afghanistan. We were attacked by an enclave of Saudis in Afghanistan.

You don't budget your luxuries first if you want to get the rent paid. Going after Iraq first was a luxury we couldn't afford. I want to see the Saudis pay their rent.

"Keep your eyes, on the prize. Hold on."





Billy,

Nukes seem to be a popular solution lately......

taoist,

Do you remember that cute little website someone put up after 9/11 about "Lake Afghanistan"?

[taoist]

Billy,

Which is it, Bush invaded Iraq because of imaginary WMD or because of imaginary links to 9-11????? I can't keep up with the ever changing stories around here!

taoist,

Let everyone else answer for themselves, my story hasn't changed. Bush invaded Iraq when he should have invaded Saudi Arabia.

[BillyBob]

Tao, you and I agree that Iraq was not the only trerrorist nation in the Middle east. We also agree that Iran and Saudi Arabia are likely more complicit. However, we had more legal grounds to invade Iraq and dethrone Saddam than any other country in that region after Afghanistan. I think we also agree that ALL of these terrorist nations need to be dealt with.

So, removing Saddam makes sense. He was definitely involved in international terrorism. We have liberated 50 million people in that region and have helped install democracies and free elections. It is part of Bush's plan that democracy itself will become the main weapon against terrorism. Once a few countries in that region start developing democratic governments, people in the sourrounding nations will demand it, also. That being the case, it doesn't really matter which country we attacked first and which country was more active in terrorism. I think not attacking the Saudis but installing democracies right next door will have the same effect with less bloodshed.

My 2 cents.

[FYI, I still have a whole pocketfull of change] :chuckle:

[taoist]

Hmm, didn't know Afghanistan was that big ... thought they were less than 20 million.



Search Results

Demographic Variable
Country
Data
Source/Notes

Population Mid-2004
Afghanistan
28,514,000
Source: PRB 2004 World Population Data Sheet_

Iraq
25,856,000
Source: PRB 2004 World Population Data Sheet_

[BillyBob]

Thousands March Against Syria in Beirut (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/14/132244.shtml)

Monday, March 14, 2005

BEIRUT, Lebanon -- Hundreds of thousands of opposition demonstrators chanted "Freedom, sovereignty, independence" and unfurled a huge Lebanese flag in Beirut on Monday, the biggest protest yet in the opposition's duel of street rallies with supporters of the Damascus-backed government.

Crowds of men, women and children flooded Martyrs Square, spilling over into nearby streets, while more from across the country packed the roads into Beirut - responding to an opposition call to demonstrate for the removal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.


"We are coming to liberate our country. We are coming to demand the truth," said Fatma Trad, a veiled Sunni Muslim woman who traveled from the remote region of Dinniyeh in northern Lebanon to take part.

The assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri exactly one month ago sparked the series of protests against Syria, the dominant power in Lebanon.

The throngs fell silent at 12:55 p.m. - the exact time Hariri was killed four weeks ago by a huge bomb in Beirut. The silence was broken only by church bells tolling and the flutter of flags.

Later, thousands of red and white balloons were released above the teeming crowd, many of whom wore scarves in the same colors that have come to symbolize the country's anti-Syrian movement. Brass bands playing patriotic and national folk songs and Lebanon's national anthem were regularly drowned out by deafening chants from the crowd.

Monday's protest easily topped a pro-government rally of hundreds of thousands of people last week by the Shiite Muslim militant group Hezbollah. That show of strength forced the opposition to try to regain its momentum.

Syria's military withdrawal continued Monday, with intelligence agents closing two offices in the northern towns of Amyoun and Deir Ammar, on the coastal road between the port of Tripoli and the Syrian border. Intelligence agents also dismantled two checkpoints in the Akkar area. About 50 intelligence agents in all departed for unknown destinations, although it was believed to be northern Syria.

Most intelligence offices, the widely resented arm through which Syria has controlled many aspects of Lebanese life, remained in northern and central Lebanon after Syrian troops moved east, closer to the Syrian border. Last week, intelligence officers left the central towns of Aley and Bhamdoun and headed to Syrian-controlled areas of eastern Lebanon. The redeployment is the first stage of what Damascus says will be a full withdrawal, although it has not given a timetable.

The opposition is demanding a full Syrian withdrawal, the resignations of Lebanese security chiefs and an international investigation into Hariri's Feb. 14 assassination.

Many were also particularly offended by pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud's reinstatement last week of Prime Minister Omar Karami, who was forced to resign on Feb. 28 by a giant opposition protest.

"They are challenging us, and we are here to show them that we will not accept," said banker Farid Samaha as he joined the demonstration. "We are determined to liberate our country and we will not stop."

A line of people in the square carried a 100-yard-long white-and-red Lebanese flag with the distinct green cedar tree in the middle, shaking it up and down and shouting, "Syria out."

Protesters chanted "Truth, freedom, national unity!" or "We want only the Lebanese army in Lebanon!"

"Syria out, no half measures," read a banner, borrowing from President Bush's description of Damascus' gradual withdrawal from this country of 3.5 million.

In addition to packing Martyrs Square, thousands of other protesters spilled into the nearby Riad Solh Square and outlying streets. There was no official count of Monday's crowd, but it appeared to reporters on the scene to be easily bigger than last week's pro-government, anti-U.S. rally called by Hezbollah, which was estimated by The Associated Press at 500,000 people.

It came in the wake of U.N. envoy Terje Roed-Larsen's string of meetings with Syrian President Bashar Assad and top Lebanese government and opposition officials to ensure the implementation of a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding Syria's withdrawal.

Roed-Larsen indicated he had extracted further details of a pullout timetable from Assad during their meeting Saturday and would take those details back to U.N. headquarters this week.

Syrian Cabinet minister Bouthaina Shaaban told CNN a "very fast timetable for withdrawal" was expected, with completion probable ahead of Lebanese parliamentary elections - as Bush has demanded. Election dates have not yet been set, but the current parliament's mandate expires May 31.

A senior Lebanese army officer said Sunday that 4,000 Syrian soldiers - more than a quarter of those serving in Lebanon just a week ago - have been brought back to Syria, but he said a date for a complete withdrawal won't be set until an April 7 meeting of Syrian and Lebanese officers.

It also requires a Lebanese government to be in place to negotiate with Syria on a full troop withdrawal, since Karami is leading a caretaker government and cannot negotiate foreign agreements. A final agreement on a Syrian withdrawal will have to wait for a Cabinet to be formed and approved by Parliament.

The political process is deadlocked, with the opposition refusing to join any government before their demands are met, and Karami insisting on a "national unity" government. Some opposition members accuse Karami of stalling to kill the chances of holding an election they believe the pro-Syrian camp, which has a majority in the legislature, will lose.

Karami is expected to begin consultations Tuesday on forming a Cabinet.

In Paris, meanwhile, former Lebanese Prime Minister Gen. Michel Aoun said Monday he will return from exile in coming weeks, with plans to help foster national reconciliation as Lebanon awaits parliamentary elections.

"My return ... will take place in the next weeks," said the former commander of the Lebanese army who fled the country in 1990.

He said he would be going back to Lebanon with Maj. Gen. Edgar Maalouf and Brig. Gen. Issam Abu Jamra, who were part of a government headed by Aoun that took over in 1988 at the end of President Amin Gemayel's term.

About 100,000 pro-Syrian demonstrators turned out Sunday in another Hezbollah-organized protest in the southern town of Nabatiyeh.

Syria has been Lebanon's main power broker for nearly three decades since sending troops to its smaller neighbor in 1976 to help quell what was then a year-old civil war. The troops, at times numbering more than 35,000, stayed after the war ended in 1990.

© 2005 The Associated Press

[BillyBob]

Clinton Sought bin Laden 'Beheading' (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/14/70516.shtml)

Ex-president Bill Clinton tried to persuade Saudi Arabia to behead Osama bin Laden while trying to arrange a deal in 1996 to have the terrorist kingpin extradited from Sudan.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday:

"In the spring of 1996, the government of Sudan offered to deliver Osama bin Laden [then living in Khartoum] into U.S. custody. The Clinton Administration was aware of the threat bin Laden posed, but it worried it didn't yet have sufficient information to indict him on terrorism charges in court. Instead, the U.S. sought to have the Saudis take bin Laden and behead him."

In February 2002, Clinton said he was personally involved in negotiations with the Saudis.

"I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato," he told a New York business group.

While the ex-president made no mention of any plan to behead bin Laden, he did admit to turning down a Sudanese offer to have him shipped to the U.S.

"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

In an October 2001 interview, Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger hinted that the beheading plan was part of the Clinton administration's renditioning policy, where terrorists are sent to Third World countries with the expectation that they will be tortured - or worse.

"In the United States, we have this thing called the Constitution," Berger told the Washington Post. "So to bring [bin Laden] here is to bring him into the justice system. I don't think that was our first choice. Our first choice was to send him someplace where justice is more 'streamlined.'"

Saudi Arabia, where bin Laden was born, follows Islamic Law, which sanctions the beheading of criminals and other offending citizens.

[taoist]

Originally posted by BillyBob

However, we had more legal grounds to invade Iraq and dethrone Saddam than any other country in that region after Afghanistan.

That's not only the best point you've made, it's far and away the best point you've made.

***

Now why are you tossing in these other stories, Billy? Just btw, that first one is a poor substitute for the same story in the NYT. AP is a good organization but the best of the best write for the Times. Glad to see you're looking at objective reporting, too, now. (But I couldn't find that WMD story you referenced.) Don't even tell me you reffed a story you haven't read.

Huge Demonstration in Lebanon Demands End to Syrian Control (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/15/international/middleeast/15lebanon.html?th)

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by taoist

That's not only the best point you've made, it's far and away the best point you've made.

***

Now why are you tossing in these other stories, Billy?

They just seemed to relate to our conversation. One, because of Muslims marching for freedom. The other, because Saudi was mentioned in connection with bin Laden.

Just btw, that first one is a poor substitute for the same story in the NYT. AP is a good organization but the best of the best write for the Times. Glad to see you're looking at objective reporting, too, now. (But I couldn't find that WMD story you referenced.) Don't even tell me you reffed a story you haven't read.


I disagree with your synopsis of the Times, but yes, I referred to a story I had not read. I heard the transcript read on two different talk radio shows yesterday. Let me know if you find the article, I'll do the same.

[BillyBob]

Here it is:

[OK, it's Rush reading the article and commenting, but the actual article is linked]

New York Times Finds Iraqi WMD Sites (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031405/content/truth_detector.guest.html)
March 14, 2005



BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
Now, there's a story in the New York Times that ran yesterday that, folks, I'll tell you, it is just amazing to continue to watch the mainstream press beat the drums in this country to try to rally anti-war support among the American people. And that's what this case has done. It's what this story has done. There's a fascinating interview in the China Daily, a Chi-Com newspaper with the managing editor of the Washington Post as well. And this managing editor of the Washington Post makes it plain that he does not think the US should be the leader of the world, and that his paper is oriented in that direction, as we've all known. I'll get to that story here in just a second.

[Headline] "Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says," New York Times yesterday. "In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government's first extensive comments on the looting." Now, anybody have a red flag going up here yet with just this paragraph? Okay. I'm sure you do. Did The Times notice its own red flag in its own opening paragraph? No, it does not. "The Iraqi official, Sami al-Araji, the deputy minister of industry, said it appeared that a highly organized operation had pinpointed specific plants in search of valuable equipment, some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications, and carted the machinery away." This is in weeks after Baghdad fell in April of 2003. The deputy minister of industry's name is Sami al-Araji, and he said his account was based largely on observations by government employees and officials who either worked at the sites or lived near them. He said, "'They came in with cranes and the lorries and they depleted the whole site. They knew what they were doing, they knew what they wanted, and this was sophisticated looting.' The threat posed by these types of facilities was cited by the Bush administration as a reason for invading Iraq, but the installations were left largely unguarded by allied forces in the chaotic months after the invasion."

All right, now, let's just recount this blatantly and as succinctly as we can. The New York Times' purpose in reporting this story is to try to embarrass the administration. It wants to lay the blame for the movement of these materials and equipment on Bush and our military. But I think The Times has made a grave miscalculation here, folks. The entire argument by the Democrats, the left in the media for years now has been that George Bush lied about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, that the purpose of the war was faulty, the CIA was wrong and so forth, and we ought not even approve what Bush is doing now. We shouldn't even approve of the fact that there's democracy breaking out because Bush lied about why we went to Iraq. We had an entire 9/11 Commission and a report that was based on the assumption that Bush lied. We had weapons inspectors return from Iraq after searching for weapons telling us there were none and if we're to believe the New York Times, much of what they have said and most of the criticism against this president have now, by virtue of their own story, been completely wrong.
Now, I have been saying for years on this program that I suspected these materials and weapons had been moved. I couldn't prove it but it never made sense to me that all the world's best intelligence agencies and experts could be so completely wrong about Hussein and his efforts. So now what will John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Carl Levin say? What will Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton say now? Are they going to apologize to the pot for attempting to sabotage the war effort for the last several years on the basis he lied about the existence of these weapons? Will they go to the Senate floor and announce that the president was right and they were wrong? Ha-ha. Will they take responsibility for their slanders against the president? The answer is no, no, and hell no. They'll admit nothing. Even though they are always wrong, and yet they are considered the most intelligent, progressive, and wise among us. It is an absolute joke. And what of Michael Moore and all his propaganda? Will he be asked to return all those phony awards he received for his phony movie? No way. He's going to continue to make movies, he'll be applauded by the Hollywood left, the Democratic Party for his public service. I just want to see how long the mainstream media will give attention to this huge story if at all.

Let's see if they give credit where credit's due and give discredit where discredit is due. Because the New York Times has shown at least for yesterday that it's willing to report about this, although I feel certain that they want the world to focus on the timing of the removal of the material and equipment rather than it's existence, and this story does the best it can to hide the fact the stuff was there, but they can't hide it very well if their main focus is the fact that it was looted. So basically what we have here is a New York Times undermining its own position all these years, undermining the position of the left, and the Democratic Party, there were weapons that had ingredients for nuclear capability. They were looted. Of course they were looted! That's the whole point. Where are they now? That's what everybody should be asking, not saying that Bush had lied about this. And there's even more to back up the notion that those weapons were there.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Here's more from this bombshell New York Times story yesterday, bombshell to me. I guess it's not gotten much play out there, has it? You know, it's fascinating here to watch. The New York Times' big story yesterday, it's all about how these serious weapons in Iraq were looted after we invaded Baghdad. And of course this is nothing more than a rehash of the story they tried to run, they did run, they tried to gin people up against Bush one week before the election, remember that? Same thing, weapons looted, weapons missing, the whole thing. It's just amazing. I don't know how else to describe it. Still trying to drum up anti-war sentiment, Bush is incompetent, Bush is a boob. It's just amazing. They can't get off of it. It illustrates they're stubborn and they're hell-bent on convincing people of this, to hell with everything else that might be going on in the world, factual or otherwise. But in the process, they end up admitting that the weapons were there all along, and that horrible weapons were there. So Bush could not have lied about it. And yet the whole basis, if there's a foundation for the Democratic Party's current anti-war position, it is that Bush lied. And, of course, that's the foundation of Michael Moore's stupid piece of propaganda. It's that Bush lied. Bush didn't lie, and the New York Times, as much as said so yesterday.

Now, there has to be a reason why the rest of the mainstream press which normally regurgitates whatever the New York Times publishes, and it still could happen on World News Tonight and the other Nightly newscasts because the New York Times is in fact the managing editor of network newscasts these days, let's make no mistakes about that. So it could well be. We'll have to wait till tonight till after the Nightly News shows to see if they do pick up on this, but it hasn't been picked up yesterday as far as I can see, and I think I know why. Two reasons. A, it's old and rehashed and nothing new, and the big reason is -- (laughing) -- can't start trumpeting this thing or they'll have to come out and admit they were wrong about Bush lying. And they'll not admit they're wrong no matter what. Look at CBS and the forged documents. They will not admit that they are wrong, and I'm talking here particularly about Dan Rather and the staff that's either been asked to resign or fired.

But listen to some of the stuff that they say was looted here. "Dr. Araji said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's dormant program on unconventional weapons. After the invasion, occupation forces found no unconventional arms, and C.I.A. inspectors concluded that the effort had been largely abandoned after the Persian Gulf war in 1991. Dr. Araji said he had no evidence regarding where the equipment had gone. But his account raises the possibility that the specialized machinery from the arms establishment that the war was aimed at neutralizing had made its way to the black market or was in the hands of foreign governments." Yeah, and some of this stuff, you wait, it's going to be found in Syria in time. You just wait. And I pointed out at the time: some of this stuff was miniaturized. You could miniaturize some of this stuff and have it fit in these pocket calculators that computer nerds wear in their shirts. They can make it that small to get it -- not just computer nerds, a lot of people, fine Americans wear pocket guards, particularly in the red states, don't misunderstand me. But this stuff could be miniaturized to that point.
"As examples of the most important sites that were looted, Dr. Araji cited the Nida Factory, the Badr General Establishment, Al Ameer, Al Radwan, Al Hatteen, Al Qadisiya and Al Qaqaa. Al Radwan, for example, was a manufacturing plant for the uranium enrichment program, with enormous machine tools for making highly specialized parts, according to the Wisconsin Project. The Nida Factory was implicated in both the nuclear program and the manufacture of Scud missiles. Al Qaqaa, with some 1,100 structures, manufactured powerful explosives that could be used for conventional missile warheads and for setting off a nuclear detonation. Last fall, Iraqi government officials warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that some 377 tons of those explosives were missing after the invasion. But Al Qaqaa also contained a wide variety of weapons manufacturing machinery, including 800 pieces of chemical equipment. The kinds of machinery at the various sites included equipment that could be used to make missile parts, chemical weapons or centrifuges essential for enriching uranium for atom bombs. All of that 'dual use' equipment also has peaceful applications - for example, a tool to make parts for a nuclear implosion device or for a powerful commercial jet turbine."

Yeah. Right. That's what was going on. Now, here's the second story. Have it right here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. This is from the UK Telegraph, "Saddam Hussein's regime offered a $2 million (£1.4 million) bribe to the United Nations' chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for weapons of mass destruction. Rolf Ekeus, the Swede who led the UN's efforts to track down the weapons from 1991 to 1997, said that the offer came from Tariq Aziz, Saddam's foreign minister and deputy... The news that Iraq attempted to bribe a top UN official is a key piece of evidence for investigators into the scandal surrounding the oil-for-food programme."

Well, hold it. All right, that's all well and good, and, by the way, what did it cost Hussein to bribe Scott Ritter? A couple of Big Macs and a woman 13 years old outside the drive-through window? Here's the bottom line, folks, this is the bottom line. Let's go back to the first paragraph. "Saddam Hussein regime offered a $2 million bribe to the UN chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for WMDs." Why? If there weren't any, why? Why start bribing people about this? Two million just to the chief inspector? What was it he doing to some of the underlings? Why bribe anybody if there were no weapons of mass destruction? If George W. Bush were lying about all of this, why does this story even get past the editors anywhere? There couldn't have been a reason to bribe anybody. There weren't any weapons of mass destruction, Bush lied about it. A-ha, my friends, the chickens are coming home to roost!

[BillyBob]

You're right, tao, I do see political news as a 'wrestling match'! :chuckle:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by taoist

AP is a good organization but the best of the best write for the Times.

Like Jayson Blair? :angel:

[taoist]

I'm not gonna trouble myself to debunk Rush line by line ... there are people out there who do it semi-professionally ... but let's leave it at this. I was afraid that was the story you were reffing, it's about conventional arms, Billy, despite Rush's best efforts to spin it into WMDs ... it's not. He's not a reporter, he's not even an editorialist, he's an entertainer. Billy, even Rush doesn't believe the stuff he puts out. He's been quoted on many occasions.

Rush doesn't tell the truth, that's not what he gets paid for. He gets paid to embellish, twist and distort. So he tells you about a story about arms caches being systematically raided and by the time he's done his listeners are convinced they've heard about the NY-Times saying "They found WMD!!" That kind of deliberate deception is why I dislike Rush. It takes work to see where he's lying. And it's a full-time job if you want to do it regularly.

The Bush administration left the sites "largely unguarded" exactly because, Rush Limbaugh's assurances aside, there just plain weren't any WMDs there. And there were companies sweeping through after the invasion looking for them. Precision machine tools are worth big bucks to anyone doing any kind of manufacturing, and that's why they were "systematically looted." The story reflects poorly on our force structure in Iraq immediately following the invasion, and Rush played off that to insert an editorial bias that just isn't there.

Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html?)



Once more around the track. Billy, when people speak of a newspaper's "bias" they're usually speaking of its editorial page. Control of the paper's editorial position does indeed lie with the publisher, but having put down many a beer at the BillyGoat with Chicago reporters, I can tell ya, it doesn't effect the news department. They'd walk out en masse if anybody tried it. It'd be like asking you to do sloppy carpentry. Professional pride is professional pride.

[taoist]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Like Jayson Blair? :angel:

Like the NY-Times editors who caught him cheating, the NY-Times reporters who went through all of his articles re-checking them, like the NY-Times senior editors who decided to give it front page coverage ...

Don't trust any news organization that doesn't make public retractions. That's why I only "watch" the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. I've never seen a retraction on the nightly newscasts of any of the Big Four networks.

[BillyBob]

Are we reading the same article???


BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 12 - In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government's first extensive comments on the looting.

Dr. Araji said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's dormant program on unconventional weapons. After the invasion, occupation forces found no unconventional arms, and C.I.A. inspectors concluded that the effort had been largely abandoned after the Persian Gulf war in 1991.

Dr. Araji said he had no evidence regarding where the equipment had gone. But his account raises the possibility that the specialized machinery from the arms establishment that the war was aimed at neutralizing had made its way to the black market or was in the hands of foreign governments.

[BillyBob]

This is fun! :chuckle:

[taoist]

The same article, with different emphasis ... and my wi-fi network is just cooking today ... usually takes me minutes to load a post.

Dr. Araji said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's dormant program on unconventional weapons. After the invasion, occupation forces found no unconventional arms, and C.I.A. inspectors concluded that the effort had been largely abandoned after the Persian Gulf war in 1991.

[BillyBob]

Ah, but see, that's a problem. Saddam still had the equipment to make those weapons. He was supposed to destroy them and prove it as part of the UN Resolutions and Bush's last chance for Saddam to avoid an invasion.

[taoist]

That last bolded comment, by the way, is an example of an objective rebuttal of Dr. Araji's position. The NY-Times isn't saying that Araji's assertions are overblown, the CIA is. The NY-Times is just reporting it to balance Araji.

[taoist]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Ah, but see, that's a problem. Saddam still had the equipment to make those weapons. He was supposed to destroy them and prove it as part of the UN Resolutions and Bush's last chance for Saddam to avoid an invasion.

No, he was supposed to destroy his weapons, dual use facilities were to be monitored. High precision manufacturing machines can make literally anything from steam generators to nuclear power plant castings. Many of the sites raided had equipment in them that had been tagged by UN inspectors and was continuously monitored by closed-circuit TV cameras. If we didn't like what the inspectors were doing, we had the ability to change their mandate, the inspectors did not. They had to follow the rules set up for them.

[taoist]

Originally posted by BillyBob

This is fun! :chuckle:

And if you weren't disagreeing with me, it would be BORING.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by taoist

And if you weren't disagreeing with me, it would be BORING.

Of course!

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by taoist

No, he was supposed to destroy his weapons,

Proof of which was never sufficiently supplied.

dual use facilities were to be monitored. High precision manufacturing machines can make literally anything from steam generators to nuclear power plant castings. Many of the sites raided had equipment in them that had been tagged by UN inspectors

And we all know how compliant Saddam was with the Weapons Inspectors! :rolleyes:

and was continuously monitored by closed-circuit TV cameras. If we didn't like what the inspectors were doing, we had the ability to change their mandate, the inspectors did not. They had to follow the rules set up for them.

Speaking of Inspectors:

[from Rush's article I linked previously]
"Saddam Hussein regime offered a $2 million bribe to the UN chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for WMDs." Why? If there weren't any, why? Why start bribing people about this? Two million just to the chief inspector? What was it he doing to some of the underlings? Why bribe anybody if there were no weapons of mass destruction? If George W. Bush were lying about all of this, why does this story even get past the editors anywhere? There couldn't have been a reason to bribe anybody. There weren't any weapons of mass destruction, Bush lied about it. A-ha, my friends, the chickens are coming home to roost!

Good point!

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Thousands March Against Syria in Beirut (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/14/132244.shtml)

Monday, March 14, 2005

BEIRUT, Lebanon -- Hundreds of thousands of opposition demonstrators chanted "Freedom, sovereignty, independence" and unfurled a huge Lebanese flag in Beirut on Monday, the biggest protest yet in the opposition's duel of street rallies with supporters of the Damascus-backed government.

Crowds of men, women and children flooded Martyrs Square, spilling over into nearby streets, while more from across the country packed the roads into Beirut - responding to an opposition call to demonstrate for the removal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.


"We are coming to liberate our country. We are coming to demand the truth," said Fatma Trad, a veiled Sunni Muslim woman who traveled from the remote region of Dinniyeh in northern Lebanon to take part.

The assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri exactly one month ago sparked the series of protests against Syria, the dominant power in Lebanon.

The throngs fell silent at 12:55 p.m. - the exact time Hariri was killed four weeks ago by a huge bomb in Beirut. The silence was broken only by church bells tolling and the flutter of flags.

Later, thousands of red and white balloons were released above the teeming crowd, many of whom wore scarves in the same colors that have come to symbolize the country's anti-Syrian movement. Brass bands playing patriotic and national folk songs and Lebanon's national anthem were regularly drowned out by deafening chants from the crowd.

Monday's protest easily topped a pro-government rally of hundreds of thousands of people last week by the Shiite Muslim militant group Hezbollah. That show of strength forced the opposition to try to regain its momentum.

Syria's military withdrawal continued Monday, with intelligence agents closing two offices in the northern towns of Amyoun and Deir Ammar, on the coastal road between the port of Tripoli and the Syrian border. Intelligence agents also dismantled two checkpoints in the Akkar area. About 50 intelligence agents in all departed for unknown destinations, although it was believed to be northern Syria.

Most intelligence offices, the widely resented arm through which Syria has controlled many aspects of Lebanese life, remained in northern and central Lebanon after Syrian troops moved east, closer to the Syrian border. Last week, intelligence officers left the central towns of Aley and Bhamdoun and headed to Syrian-controlled areas of eastern Lebanon. The redeployment is the first stage of what Damascus says will be a full withdrawal, although it has not given a timetable.

The opposition is demanding a full Syrian withdrawal, the resignations of Lebanese security chiefs and an international investigation into Hariri's Feb. 14 assassination.

Many were also particularly offended by pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud's reinstatement last week of Prime Minister Omar Karami, who was forced to resign on Feb. 28 by a giant opposition protest.

"They are challenging us, and we are here to show them that we will not accept," said banker Farid Samaha as he joined the demonstration. "We are determined to liberate our country and we will not stop."

A line of people in the square carried a 100-yard-long white-and-red Lebanese flag with the distinct green cedar tree in the middle, shaking it up and down and shouting, "Syria out."

Protesters chanted "Truth, freedom, national unity!" or "We want only the Lebanese army in Lebanon!"

"Syria out, no half measures," read a banner, borrowing from President Bush's description of Damascus' gradual withdrawal from this country of 3.5 million.

In addition to packing Martyrs Square, thousands of other protesters spilled into the nearby Riad Solh Square and outlying streets. There was no official count of Monday's crowd, but it appeared to reporters on the scene to be easily bigger than last week's pro-government, anti-U.S. rally called by Hezbollah, which was estimated by The Associated Press at 500,000 people.

It came in the wake of U.N. envoy Terje Roed-Larsen's string of meetings with Syrian President Bashar Assad and top Lebanese government and opposition officials to ensure the implementation of a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding Syria's withdrawal.

Roed-Larsen indicated he had extracted further details of a pullout timetable from Assad during their meeting Saturday and would take those details back to U.N. headquarters this week.

Syrian Cabinet minister Bouthaina Shaaban told CNN a "very fast timetable for withdrawal" was expected, with completion probable ahead of Lebanese parliamentary elections - as Bush has demanded. Election dates have not yet been set, but the current parliament's mandate expires May 31.

A senior Lebanese army officer said Sunday that 4,000 Syrian soldiers - more than a quarter of those serving in Lebanon just a week ago - have been brought back to Syria, but he said a date for a complete withdrawal won't be set until an April 7 meeting of Syrian and Lebanese officers.

It also requires a Lebanese government to be in place to negotiate with Syria on a full troop withdrawal, since Karami is leading a caretaker government and cannot negotiate foreign agreements. A final agreement on a Syrian withdrawal will have to wait for a Cabinet to be formed and approved by Parliament.

The political process is deadlocked, with the opposition refusing to join any government before their demands are met, and Karami insisting on a "national unity" government. Some opposition members accuse Karami of stalling to kill the chances of holding an election they believe the pro-Syrian camp, which has a majority in the legislature, will lose.

Karami is expected to begin consultations Tuesday on forming a Cabinet.

In Paris, meanwhile, former Lebanese Prime Minister Gen. Michel Aoun said Monday he will return from exile in coming weeks, with plans to help foster national reconciliation as Lebanon awaits parliamentary elections.

"My return ... will take place in the next weeks," said the former commander of the Lebanese army who fled the country in 1990.

He said he would be going back to Lebanon with Maj. Gen. Edgar Maalouf and Brig. Gen. Issam Abu Jamra, who were part of a government headed by Aoun that took over in 1988 at the end of President Amin Gemayel's term.

About 100,000 pro-Syrian demonstrators turned out Sunday in another Hezbollah-organized protest in the southern town of Nabatiyeh.

Syria has been Lebanon's main power broker for nearly three decades since sending troops to its smaller neighbor in 1976 to help quell what was then a year-old civil war. The troops, at times numbering more than 35,000, stayed after the war ended in 1990.

© 2005 The Associated Press What happens when we find out that the assassination of Rafik Hariri was done by the CIA to bring about the expulsion of the Syrians?

[BillyBob]

Applaud! :BRAVO:

[taoist]

Jeez, morph!

Chop that stuff down before you post it again. Billy shouldn't even be posting complete articles and I can't for the life of me see why you felt the need to quote the whole thing. You didn't comment on the whole thing, didja?

[taoist]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Proof of which was never sufficiently supplied.
Plenty of proof the Saudis were the principle force behind 9/11.

And we all know how compliant Saddam was with the Weapons Inspectors! :rolleyes:
And we all know how compliant the Saudi royal family is with the Wahabis.

Good point!
Why, thanks, Billy.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by taoist

Jeez, morph!

Chop that stuff down before you post it again. Billy shouldn't even be posting complete articles and I can't for the life of me see why you felt the need to quote the whole thing. You didn't comment on the whole thing, didja? Lazy.

[taoist]

There's easier ways to be lazy, morph.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by taoist

Billy shouldn't even be posting complete articles

If I chop them up, I get accused of 'selective editing'. If I post them whole, I get accused of...uh......posting them whole! :bang:

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by Morpheus

What happens when we find out that the assassination of Rafik Hariri was done by the CIA to bring about the expulsion of the Syrians?
BLOTD! :darwinsm:

[taoist]

Originally posted by BillyBob

If I chop them up, I get accused of 'selective editing'. If I post them whole, I get accused of...uh......posting them whole! :bang:

Ya know, now I think of it, I'm not sure if that's a copyright violation or not. But if the revenooers show up at your door step, I'd suggest some "selective editing."

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by taoist

Ya know, now I think of it, I'm not sure if that's a copyright violation or not. But if the revenooers show up at your door step, I'd suggest some "selective editing."

I've never been one to worry about such things...

...I'll take them out back and show them my tree.

[Skeptic]

Jumping in...

Originally posted by BillyBob

Here's all you need See my emphasis:
(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, ... Based on the absence hard pre-war empirical evidence that Iraq posed a real, significant and imminent threat to America or other countries, invading them (killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process) was unnecessary and immoral.
including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. Iraq had no part in planning, authorizing, committing or aiding the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

[Frank Ernest]

:Commie: :blabla: :yawn:

[BillyBob]

:banana:

[The commies are doing their 'Bush didn't find any WMD' shtick this morning so I figured I'd bump this baby back into action]

[Delmar]

Based on the absence hard pre-war empirical evidence that Iraq posed a real, significant and imminent threat to America or other countries, invading them (killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process) was unnecessary and immoral.
.
Blaming Bush for the death of every innocent killed in Iraq is stupid unnecessary and immoral.

[Frank Ernest]

Looks like there are a bunch of :Commie: atheist :liberals: rewind-restart schticks going on.

[BillyBob]

Seems like a good day to bump this.....



IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; 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;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
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 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.
(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 joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

[Holly]

Seems like a good day to bump this.....

For once, I agree with you, BB. It is always a good day to reflect on how we became involved in this fiasco, which the majority of Americans now see as a grave mistake:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/656

[BillyBob]

No mistake, Saddam was a terrorist and needed to be removed from power. Every thinking American certainly agrees with this.

[BillyBob]

Of course, I can see why you wouldn't agree.......my Little Commie Cupcake.