Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: artsie24
and another...

HERE is a reminder of what all were saying about the intelligence prior to the invasion. Including TOM DASCHLE.

http://www.senate.gov/~daschle/pdf/iraqresolution101002.pdf

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/924988/posts


Daschle convinced of Iraq's WMD (FLASHBACK: Daschle statement October 11, 2002)

Statement by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle on a Resolution Authorizing the President to Use Force, if Necessary, to End the Threat to World Peace from Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Thursday, October 10, 2002

Mr. President, we are now engaged in one of the most consequential debates addressed in this chamber in
many years. We are confronting the grave issues of war and peace. We are considering how the United
States should respond to a murderous dictator who has shown that he will be bound neither by conscience,
nor by the laws or principles of civilized nations. And we are contemplating whether, and under what
conditions, the Congress should authorize the pre-emptive use of American military power to remove the
threat he poses.

These questions go directly to who we are as a nation. How we answer them will have profound
consequences -- for our nation, for our allies, for the war on terrorism, and -- perhaps most importantly -- for
the men and women in our armed forces who could be called to risk their lives because of our decisions.

There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man who has done barbaric things. He has invaded
neighbors, supported terrorists, repressed and murdered his own people. Over the last several months, as the
world has sought to calm the violence between Israelis and Palestinians, Iraq has tried to inflame the situation
by speaking against the very existence of Israel and encouraging suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank.

Saddam Hussein has stockpiled, weaponized, and used chemical and biological weapons. And he has made
no secret of his desire to acquire nuclear weapons. He has ignored international agreements and frustrated
the efforts of international inspectors, and his ambitions today are as unrelenting as they have ever been.

As a condition of the truce that ended the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein agreed to eliminate Iraq’s nuclear,
biological and chemical weapons, and to abandon all efforts to develop or deliver such weapons. That
agreement is spelled out in UN Security Council Resolution 687. Iraq has never complied with the resolution.

For the first seven years after the Gulf War, it tried to deceive UN weapons inspectors, block their access to
key sites and make it impossible for them to do their jobs. Finally, in October 1998, the UN was left with no
choice but to withdraw its inspectors from Iraq. As a result, we do not know exactly what is now in Iraq’s
arsenal.

We do know, however, that Iraq has weaponized thousands of gallons of anthrax and other deadly biological
agents. We know that Iraq maintains stockpiles of some of world’s deadliest chemical weapons, including
VX, sarin and mustard gas. We know that Iraq is developing deadlier ways to deliver these horrible
weapons, including unmanned drones and long-range ballistic missiles. And we know that Saddam Hussein is
committed to one day possessing nuclear weapons. If that should happen, instead of simply bullying the Gulf
region, he could dominate it. Instead of threatening only his neighbors, he would become a grave threat to
US security and to global security. The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent. But it is real.
It is growing. And it cannot be ignored.

--snip----
Second: We need to make it clear to the world that the reason we would use force in Iraq is to remove
Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. I would prefer that this goal had been made explicit in this
resolution. However, it is clear from this debate that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction are the principal
threat to the United States -- and the only threat that would justify the use of United States military force
against Iraq. It is the threat that the President cited repeatedly in his speech to the American people Monday
night. It may also be the only threat that can rally the world to support our efforts. Therefore, we expect, and
success demands, that the Administration not lose sight of this essential mission.
7 posted on 06/11/2003 10:31:44 AM PDT by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: finnman69
Public Law No: 107-243 (Passed 296 - 133 in the House, 77 - 23 in the Senate)


Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

--H.J.Res.114--

H.J.Res.114

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.


Considering the outrage being expressed now, on has to wonder, why was there nothing but (((crickets chirping))) when these attempts were formally made?

Expressing the sense of the Congress that Public Law 107-243, the authorization to use military force against Iraq, is null and void. (Introduced in House)

Expressing the sense of the Congress that Public Law 107-243, the authorization to use military force against Iraq, is null and void. (Introduced in House)

HCON 101 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. CON. RES. 101

Expressing the sense of the Congress that Public Law 107-243, the authorization to use military force against Iraq, is null and void.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 19, 2003

Mr. KUCINICH submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations


CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that Public Law 107-243, the authorization to use military force against Iraq, is null and void.

Whereas on the eve of an unprovoked military attack by the United States against the country of Iraq, the public is learning that the Administration's rationale for commencing hostilities is based on a series of claims that are untrue, unfounded, dubious, or disproven;

Whereas many of these ill-founded allegations were highlighted in a March 18, 2003, story in the Washington Post titled, `Bush Clings To Dubious Allegations About Iraq', or in the March 3, 2003, edition of Newsweek magazine;

Whereas on the Administration's contention that Iraq poses a nuclear threat, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed El Baradei, has said that there is no evidence of resumed nuclear activities in Iraq;

Whereas key evidence supporting the allegation of an Iraqi nuclear program has been exposed as a forgery;

Whereas the Washington Post's March 18 story notes also that `El Baradei also contradicted Bush and other officials who argued that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. The IAEA determined that Iraq did not plan to use imported aluminum tubes for enriching uranium and generating nuclear weapons. El Baradei argued that the tubes were for conventional weapons and `it was highly unlikely' that the tubes could have been used to produce nuclear material';

Whereas on the Administration's contention that Iraq has ties to al-Qaeda and potential to share weapons of mass destruction with al-Qaeda, the Washington Post article states, `But in October CIA Director George J. Tenet told Congress that Hussein would not give such weapons to terrorists unless he decided helping terrorists in conducting a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him';

Whereas on the Administration's contention that Iraq poses a threat to its neighbors, the Washington Post article of March 18 reports: `Inspectors have found that the Al Samoud-2 missiles can travel less than 200 miles--not far enough to hit the targets Bush named. Iraq has not accounted for 14 medium-range Scud missiles from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but the administration has not presented any evidence that they still exist';

Whereas on the Administration's contention that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, the March 3, 2003, edition of Newsweek reported that Iraqi defector Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel told United Nations inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles; and

Whereas as a Nation, the United States does not have grounds for launching a war against a country that poses no imminent or direct threat to us or our allies: Now, therefore be it


Expressing the sense of Congress that Congress has the sole and exclusive power to declare war. (Introduced in House)

Expressing the sense of Congress that Congress has the sole and exclusive power to declare war. (Introduced in House)

HCON 102 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H . CON . RES . 102

Expressing the sense of Congress that Congress has the sole and exclusive power to declare war.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 19, 2003

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (for herself and Mr. CONYERS) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations


CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that Congress has the sole and exclusive power to declare war.

Whereas the President should present to Congress the question of war as provided for in the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8; and

Whereas our valiant men and women of the United States military are away from home to fight a war, to protect the peace, or to enforce disarmament, they will have the full support of the Congress, and we will take every possible step to ensure that they are protected from potential attacks and a negative environment, that they have the support they need to do their jobs effectively and efficiently, and that we bring them home safely as soon as practicable: Now, therefore, be it


20 posted on 06/11/2003 4:31:31 PM PDT by michigander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson