The words that give Bush the Authority.

UN / US Congress ^ | 3-9-03 | OXENinFLA

[OXENinFLA]

I just felt like ranting on a Sunday morning, comments, criticism and additions welcome.

[OrioleFan]

An awesome rant BUMP!

[NonValueAdded]

Pretty darn clear, isn't it?

[NordP]

Wish YOU were at that Security Council meeting!!!

Great job!

[DCPatriot]

I have some words that trump this.....

"I, George Walker Bush, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[borntodiefree]

Though the truth is generally not welcome, the second document isn't worth the recycled toilet paper it was written on.

Congress can not deligate the "declaration of war" authority to the Executive branch by legislative fiat or via treaty. All laws and treaties are subject to the scrutiny of the Constitution, or there would be no need for Constitutional Protections becuase they can be defeated by a foreign treaty...

Yes I am for the ousting of Saddam...Am I convinced that it is the job of the US military...not yet mostly because I haven't seen any real evidence that they are a direct threat the United States. Do I believe that American Citizens can go and join in a revolution in Iraq, or provide money and guns/weapons...absolutely.

I am not willing to give into political presure and make an "end justifies the means" decision. This mentality is how we ended up giving Iraq Biological and Chemical weapons to use, and then when they are no longer beneficial to the government (not the people of America), then they are the enemy.

Of course personally, I am a whole lot more concerned about the so called USA PATRIOT ACT, Homeland Security Act, and the currently named USA PATRIOT ACT 2 than I am Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden

[OXENinFLA]

I'm guessing that why this was written into [H.J. Res. 114]

(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.

[Gritty]

Sure. All the people now objecting to these resolutions voted for them in the first place. Who knows? They may even have read them.

But, they didn't really mean them. When they voted, they had their hands behing their backs, fingers crossed. So, it doesn't count!

Their real purpose was to forstall, hopefully forever, the use of force to implement them. In the end their actions will probably cost more lives, both Iraqi and American and her allies.

It's cowardice and double dealing, we know. So do they, although they will call it "courage".

So, what are we ultimately going to do about it?

[mass55th]

With your attitude, Britain, France or the Concentration Camps never would have been liberated.

If you don't think that Saddam is a threat to this country, why support his romoval?

What you need to realize is that he does have weapons of mass destruction and that he would have no qualms about giving them to our other enemies, who would then in turn use them on us.

And would you please care to share how the USA PATRIOT ACT, Homeland Security Act, and the currently named USA PATRIOT ACT 2 have specifically affected you? Please provide us with a list of how they have caused your life to change or be harmed?

[Eva]

Don't you think that it is at all suspicious that Hans Blix came into the information about the drones so late in the game that the info was not included in his preliminary report and that we now have evidence of one drone, just days before the security council is to vote on the war resolution?

[OXENinFLA]

.... Hans Blix came into the information about the drones so late in the game that the info was not included in his preliminary report ........

The point is it's not Hans Blix that is supposed to report that Iraq has these unmanned aerial vehicle, it was IRAQ'S responsibility to report them 30 days after 1441 was ratified.

[Eva]

Of course, there was a dead-line, but the appeasers have already let that dead line pass without action, so now, suddenly Saddam is showing small signs of movement toward disrmament which will give the French cover for their obstinance in defying the US.

[piasa]

This one works for me:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."

[Jim Noble]

It's missing THIS:

"That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Iraq is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against theGovernemnt of Iraq; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

All the resources of the country are hereby pledged.

That is the one thing the Commander-in-Chief cannot do. Only We the People, acting through our Representatives in Congress assembled, can do so.

As we should.

[Archangelsk]

"against all enemies foreign and domestic." Yeah, I've said those words too and also administered them.

[WOSG]

I guess you are saying the UAVs constitute a "smoking gun" violation?

[OXENinFLA]

Not just the UAV's.

There are so many thing Saddam has violated and disregarded I would refer you to Collin Powell's last few speeches for some of what is public and there is I'm guessing more that is classified.

[OXENinFLA]

I don't think it constitutes a "smoking gun" cause it hasn't gone of yet. That's why we need to take it from him. I don't want to see a smoking gun cause I don't want to read a headline that says 50,000 DEAD.

[William Terrell]

And where's our Constitution? I don't see only of it mentioned. All I see is UN crap. If this gives the president authority to wage war on a foreign country then the UN security council voting against it means no war. And if the president goes to war without the UN apporval then all these words mean nothing.

If you're going to dance to the band, you have to dance to the tune it chooses to play or you're a hypocrite.

[OXENinFLA]

If all you see is UN crap you must have missed the parts of House Joint Resolution 114 passed by congress on 10-16-02 that was posted.