If this Iraq Resolution passes, then that means the Congress is authorizing the President to attack Iraq.
Point # 4 clearly identifies Iraq as being an aggressor against the USA. In this perspective, that would officially put Iraq among "those nations, organizations or persons the President determines have planned, authorized, committed or aided terrorist attacks or have harbored such organizations or persons." (according the language used in the Congress resolution authorizing the president to use force against terrorists after the September 11 attacks). In other words, after this Iraq Resolution passes, the President will have the definite freedom to deal with Iraq as he chooses.
Though I have a lot of respect Paul, libertarians are usually out of touch with reality, particularly as it deals with the military. Paul is of the same political bent as Harry Browne, who said the U.S. essentially deserved the September 11 attacks because of our foreign policy. Libertarians are merely conservatives who have same lack of grasp of reality as socialists.
Let me ask what is going on here?? Why is Paul objecting? (I'm not that familiar with Paul-heard about him of course, but what's going on??)
So what if we say that Iraq has committed an act of agression against the United States? It is not news.
Where is the "penalty" for such activity? What does the House propose we do about it? No words in this resolution.
But I'm not surprised. It's the same crowd that couldn't bring themselves to formally declare war after September 11.
We ought to give the Iraqis a nuclear device, that will detonate if it is reverse-engineered. It should be housed in a ballistic missile which can be controlled by the Iraqis via a Apple IIe.
Then when Saddam launches it toward the United States or its allies, we can declare war.
(Of course, the nuclear detonation codes would remain with GWB, and the nuke would not be armed.)
Sponsored by Reps. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Porter Goss, R-Fla., and Henry Hyde, R-Ill.,
No matter how much we may want Sadamm, Congress only authorized the President
"To use all necessary and appropriate force aganist those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, commited or aided the terrorist attacks that occured on Sept 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons"
So unless he has the goods on Sadamm for Sept, 11 or the goods on him that he harbored such organizations or persons, he cant just move in and do as he pleases without another specific statutory authorization for use of force from Congress.
Congress also points to this:
INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution;
The President can not conclude he can introduce US Armed Forces into hostilities unless he has the goods on Sadam for Sept, 11 or that he harbored such organizations or persons.
This resolution does not authorize anything and he needs to go back to Congress get an authorization for use of Military Force.
Congress has tied the Presidents hands and people need to face that fact and hold them accountable if they think it is wrong.