Govt. Response to Katrina

[Mary]

Yes, both Bush and Congress were necessary conditions for the Iraq war- one to give authority and the other to actually use it. But Other factors tip the balance of blame over to Bush: It was his party in control of both houses of Congress, and the Bush administration either misstated the reasons for going to war or out-and-out lied.

[DarthMaximus]

Becaue you do not agree with it, or choose to focus in on only one reason (wmd) does not make it a lie.

From the Wiki link - reasons listed in war resolution:

_The act cited several factors to justify a war:

Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire
Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region”
Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population”
Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”
Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of George Bush Sr, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
Iraq’s connection to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda
Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States_

I do not know why some people are so eager to defend Saddam. Who cares why he was removed. It is a good thing he is out of power.

[stuka pilot]

@marine36:

You people are hopeless, this thread is about the Hurricane, NOT THE WAR!!!

Your buddy Jen brought it up by comparing the two.

[Mary]

@DarthMaximus:

Becaue you do not agree with it, or choose to focus in on only one reason (wmd) does not make it a lie.

From the Wiki link - reasons listed in war resolution:

_The act cited several factors to justify a war:

Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire
Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region”
Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population”
Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”
Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of George Bush Sr, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
Iraq’s connection to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda
Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States_

I do not know why some people are so eager to defend Saddam. Who cares why he was removed. It is a good thing he is out of power.

Without WMD’s, nukes, and links to Al Queda, an invasion of Iraq never would have taken place. Those were THE defining reasons for going to war.

And if anyone is eager to “defend” Saddam, it was America, back in the 80’s. Ever seen that picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand? Or the weapons we supplied Hussein with? He was the same bad guy back then as he was in 2002.

[cystic crypt]

Now now Mary . . .
Afterall - SH had WMD - gas - supplied by the US in his possession.

That’s kind of interesting. How different is this than a cop with tons of marijuana at home, planting marijuana on someone, and then arresting them for possession after he lights up . . . ?

[haxorboy]

From the Wiki link - reasons listed in war resolution:

you do realize anyone can put anything in a wiki link right? not bashing you just saying, quoting that is like quoting something we have said on this message board as stone cold evidence to acquit OJ…

[DarthMaximus]

:D No duh. I just didn’t feel like pasting this in, since I already had the wiki link and it did a nice job of summarizing.

Read and enjoy ALL the reasons are there. You, Mary and the others can choose to ignore them if you wish.

How can you guys defend Saddam?

Yeah Mary, the same Saddam where Chirac had a nice French Nuclear Reactor built for him.

Thank goodness the Isreali’s took it out.

We also partnered with Stalin in WW2 another mass murderer. But I’m sure you liked him as well. Communism was a real Boom for them. :roll:

Who gives a sh** why he was taken out? I don’t care if took him out cause he was a Yankees fan. I really don’t care, nor do I care if he and Reagan and the Pope and Mother Teresa all had Christmas dinner together.

And if anyone is eager to “defend” Saddam, it was America, back in the 80’s. Ever seen that picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand? Or the weapons we supplied Hussein with? He was the same bad guy back then as he was in 2002.

LOL!!! So What!

So you’re happy we finally did the right thing and got that ass out of power.
We corrected a grieveous error. We paid for our mistakes. Why do you defend Saddam now.

So you’re happy we removed him from power. Good to have you on board Mary. :D

_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.
© 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.
© 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._

[Jennifer]

@Mary:

Darth, giving authority to go to war and declaring war are two different things. Congress did not declare war on Iraq. Bush did. Find a link if you think otherwise.

H.J. Res. 114,
October 16, 2002

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (H.J.Res. 114) was a resolution passed in October 2002 by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War under the War Powers Resolution. The authorization was sought by U.S. President George W. Bush, and it passed the House by a vote of 296-133 and the Senate by a vote of 77-23, receiving significant support from both major political parties. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

The act cited several factors to justify a war:

• Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire
• Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region”
• Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population”
• Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”
• Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of George Bush Sr, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
• Iraq’s connection to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda
• Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States

The act praised President Bush’s diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to “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.” It authorized him to use military force to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.” Before being permitted to use force, the President was required to determine that further diplomatic efforts alone would not satisfactorily protect the United States or ensure Iraq’s compliance with UNSC resolutions.

The act was significant in that it did not require the President to obtain UN Security Council authorization. Further, even if Iraq complied with UNSC resolutions, the President was still authorized to attack in order to protect the United States. This was, in effect, approval for Bush to act unilaterally. This was viewed among American conservatives as a major impetus for the UNSC’s unanimous adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 a few weeks later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq

Will you be quiet now? That was Congress passing a DOW. Just as much as it was Congress who passed the DOW in Vietnam and Korea.

[Jennifer]

@Janus1:

Giving someone the power to use force does not = using force yourself. The state of California authorizes police officers to use force when necessary. Does that mean California beat up Rodney King? Lol.

president bush AND congress give the soldiers the authority to kill iraqi soldiers and insurgents in iraq. does that mean president bush and congress killed iraqi soldiers and insurgents?

if your paying such attention to detail, you should note that Bush didnt declare war either, since he is not capable. only congress can declare war. under the war powers act, the president can use the military for up to 90 days i think, but then he must be authorized by congress to extend that. so yes, congress authorized bush to use force, and no, bush did NOT declare war.

Instead of going into details, I’ll just post the War Powers Act of 1973 below:

The War Powers Act of 1973
Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973
Joint Resolution
Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1.
This joint resolution may be cited as the “War Powers Resolution”.

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. ©
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

REPORTING

Sec. 4. (a)
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced–

(1)
into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2)
into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3)

(A)
the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B)
the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
©
the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

Sec. 4. (b)
The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.
Sec. 4. ©
Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

SEC. 5. (a)
Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.
SEC. 5. (b)
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
SEC. 5. ©
Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL

SEC. 6. (a)
Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and such committee shall report one such joint resolution or bill, together with its recommendations, not later than twenty-four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.
SEC. 6. (b)
Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 6. ©
Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out not later than fourteen calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). The joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC 6. (d)
In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution or bill passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such resolution or bill not later than four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than the expiration of such sixty-day period.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

SEC. 7. (a)
Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and one such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. (b)
Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. ©
Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. (d)
In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such concurrent resolution within six calendar days after the legislation is referred to the committee of conference. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.

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; or
(2)
from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing 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.

SEC. 8. (b)
Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.
SEC 8. ©
For purposes of this joint resolution, the term “introduction of United States Armed Forces” includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.
SEC. 8. (d)
Nothing in this joint resolution–

(1)
is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or
(2)
shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

SEPARABILITY CLAUSE
SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint resolution and the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 10. This joint resolution shall take effect on the date of its enactment.

CARL ALBERT

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

JAMES O. EASTLAND

President of the Senate pro tempore.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,
November 7, 1973.
The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the resolution (H. J. Res 542) entitled “Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President”, returned by the President of the United States with his objections, to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, it was

Resolved, That the said resolution pass, two-thirds of the House of Representatives agreeing to pass the same.

Attest:

W. PAT JENNINGS

Clerk.

I certify that this Joint Resolution originated in the House of Representatives.

W. PAT JENNINGS

Clerk.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 7, 1973
The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 542) entitled “Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President”, returned by the President of the United States with his objections to the House of Representatives, in which it originate, it was

Resolved, That the said joint resolution pass, two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the affirmative.

Attest:

FRANCIS R. VALEO

Secretary.

You can find this via google in as much time as it took Mary to be completely wrong that Congress didn’t declare war / authorize military force on/to Iraq.

Also, you’ll note some of the bold type sections I highlighted. Most notable is that the President must confer with the Congress prior to ANY military action, regardless of merit or need and only in time of emergency may he deploy forces to protect the nation from present and immenant danger until such time he can confer with the Congress or a maximum of 60 days has expired. That means that if Canada invades with it’s entire army and all it’s royal mounted police then the President can deploy the Army to repell the invaders for 60 days maximum, if the Congress doesn’t approve or cannot be briefed during that time he must - by law - remove all armed forces from combat as soon as possible and await Congressional approval.

Thus, anything done in Iraq is with Congressional authority and approval. The Congress is briefed daily by the military intelligence, CIA and their own advisors. If at any time they wanted to cease the war in Iraq all they would have to do is produce a joint resolution (simple majority) informing the President that military actions in Iraq are to be terminated and they would be terminated. It would still take time to extract our forces, but no new forces would be deployed and the President would have to supply, and follow, an extraction plan.

Thus, all activities in Iraq are sanctioned by the Congress and if you dislike the war, then you should inform your Congressmen and Senators. However, bear in mind, you are in the vast minority and it won’t really matter. Even your congressmen and senators are getting rich off the kickbacks on this one - why do you think your democrat oil farm giants signed off on this?

[haxorboy]

Who gives a sh** why he was taken out? I don’t care if took him out cause he was a Yankees fan. I really don’t care, nor do I care if he and Reagan and the Pope and Mother Teresa all had Christmas dinner together.

The problem is simply who are we to decide who is a bad guy or not? The little man in N. Korea is pretty bad, but I don’t see us invading them. I have always had my doubts about those silly people in Iceland, should we remove their leader as well? To invade a country under false pretense is bad enough but your justification is that of a country hell bent on world domination.

Although I am glad that Saddam was never presented the ability to fire a nuclear missle thanks to the Israelies, what if the Russians in the 60’s decided to bomb a few of our nuclear plants? Why is it just in your eyes for a country to be removed of it’s nuclear capability that is not the US? We are not judge and jury for the rest of the world and cannot think like that. I worry everyday that WWIII will be forced upon us due to trying to remove another countries ability to wield a nuclear weapon.

And the war resolution you pasted is sort of funny if you read it…it talks about all the violations of the UN Security Council, but did the UN authorize the war? The rest of the reasons we went to war were based off of the evidence of WMD, which we all know never turned up. And then there is the “harboring terrorists” clause…shouldn’t we go invade Saudi, Lebanon and most of N. Africa? If you are going to gloat about something at least do it on something with more merit then the trumped up reasons to go to war.

[Jennifer]

@haxorboy:

Who gives a sh** why he was taken out? I don’t care if took him out cause he was a Yankees fan. I really don’t care, nor do I care if he and Reagan and the Pope and Mother Teresa all had Christmas dinner together.

The problem is simply who are we to decide who is a bad guy or not? The little man in N. Korea is pretty bad, but I don’t see us invading them. I have always had my doubts about those silly people in Iceland, should we remove their leader as well? To invade a country under false pretense is bad enough but your justification is that of a country hell bent on world domination.

In the case of Saddam, it was general world consensus that he was an evil tyrant. For a while he was OUR evil tyrant, but he was still an evil tyrant. If Iran had never taken our citizens hostage in the 70’s then we probably would have never supported Saddam’s militias.

However, since he WAS a tyrant and we DID put him in power, then it was our moral and ethical responsibility to the world to right the wrongs we did and remove him from power and allow the people to create a democratic regime where no one sect held power over the other two based only on religion.

We arn’t advocating invading some African nation and killing some no name dictator who takes pleasure in raping 8 year old girls. We can let the UN handle that since we didn’t put him in charge. We did put Saddam in charge and it was our duty to remove him. It’s like when you spill milk on the kitchen floor. Is it your mommy’s job to clean it up, or is it yours? Well, who spilled the milk, you or your mommy? You right? Well then it’s YOUR job to clean it up. (I have this arguement alot with my husband, it’s his job to lower the seat on the toilet, he lifted it, he can lower it.) Okay, that’s a simplification obviously, but the principle is the same.

[haxorboy]

@Jennifer:

@haxorboy:

Who gives a sh** why he was taken out? I don’t care if took him out cause he was a Yankees fan. I really don’t care, nor do I care if he and Reagan and the Pope and Mother Teresa all had Christmas dinner together.

The problem is simply who are we to decide who is a bad guy or not? The little man in N. Korea is pretty bad, but I don’t see us invading them. I have always had my doubts about those silly people in Iceland, should we remove their leader as well? To invade a country under false pretense is bad enough but your justification is that of a country hell bent on world domination.

In the case of Saddam, it was general world consensus that he was an evil tyrant. For a while he was OUR evil tyrant, but he was still an evil tyrant. If Iran had never taken our citizens hostage in the 70’s then we probably would have never supported Saddam’s militias.

However, since he WAS a tyrant and we DID put him in power, then it was our moral and ethical responsibility to the world to right the wrongs we did and remove him from power and allow the people to create a democratic regime where no one sect held power over the other two based only on religion.

We arn’t advocating invading some African nation and killing some no name dictator who takes pleasure in raping 8 year old girls. We can let the UN handle that since we didn’t put him in charge. We did put Saddam in charge and it was our duty to remove him. It’s like when you spill milk on the kitchen floor. Is it your mommy’s job to clean it up, or is it yours? Well, who spilled the milk, you or your mommy? You right? Well then it’s YOUR job to clean it up. (I have this arguement alot with my husband, it’s his job to lower the seat on the toilet, he lifted it, he can lower it.) Okay, that’s a simplification obviously, but the principle is the same.

Well laid out response AND you refrained from telling me I have no education…why can’t this Jen come out and play more often?

I see where you are going with the Saddam thing and if that was the reason given to the US I bet their wouldn’t be as much hostility toward the war based off the supposed proof of WMD ya know?

[Jennifer]

WMDs were just the most prevalent cause. However, there was a whole host of reasons stated in the joint resolution of Congress, and while WMDs were included in that list, they were not the entirety of the list.

And for the record, we do have proof of Yellow Cake sales to Iraq (that would be nuclear fissionable material from Africa, capable of being turned into rudimentary nuclear bombs) as well as nerve gas and rocket delivery systems that far exceeded the distance permitted by the UN resolutions and on top of htat our pilots being fired upon and one being held captive illegally and then there’s the torture camps and sanctioned rapes of Iraqs and the mass murder of hundreds or even thousands of innocents by Saddam’s hands.

By no means was this ever just about WMDs. The libs are trying to turn it into just that because its the only section that is somewhat weak and it was played up more then the rest, but in the resolution all items listed were of equal importance.

[haxorboy]

The only other things on that list were:

al Qaeda and UN SC violations, but 90% of that was about WMD. If you don’t believe me read it yourself, Darth posted it…

[DarthMaximus]

:lol:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. "

I just noticed your sig. :lol:

So it was a good thing we invaded Iraq.

Or is your sig a joke???

[haxorboy]

It says to stand up against evil, doesn’t say anything about being judge and jury as the US see’s fit ;)

[cystic crypt]

@haxorboy:

I see where you are going with the Saddam thing and if that was the reason given to the US I bet their wouldn’t be as much hostility toward the war based off the supposed proof of WMD ya know?

well, i’m not sure about this.
I mean - yeah, i’m kind of upset that this dumba$$ lied to our country about WMD’s and links to AQ about SH in order to try to enlist us to go in and kill a bunch of Iraqi’s.
The thing is that his idiotship also said that they wanted to take out SH, and we didn’t really care about that either.

So you have to think - the “coalition of the willing” went into Iraq because they actually believed Bush’s lies about WMD’s and links to AQ, and to dethrone SH. I wonder how many of these would have gone along if they thought they were just going to overthrow SH. My thinking is that there might be a lot fewer, and there would be a stronger case against Bush’s little declaration.

Anyway - i’m not so consumed by the “why” for invasion as i was pretty convinced that it was bunk well before the invasion. I am upset about the cost for this in the form of:
between 25-100 000 Iraqi civilian lives
untold Iraqi defenders killed during an unwarranted invasion
the theiving of multi-millions of dollars of Iraqi resources to “rebuild” its infrastructure (dumped into US companies, naturally)
midnight arrests and torture of citizens thought to be against the occupation by the occupiers
the destruction of 1800 US solders (in addition to allied) lives (nevermind the wounded etc.)
increased friction between the west and the middle east
an increase in terrorism in the world

now this is not my worry, couldn’t the >$85 B that you guys dumped into Iraq be spent in better ways? Maybe in reinforced levees around a couple of cattle fields/cities? Again - not my problem.

[Mary]

So, did you ever find where Congress declared war on Iraq? No? Better keep looking! Probably in that library you always go to ;) And who decided if, when, where, and how to invade? Congress? Could it have been the White House? The worst you can say about Congress is that they shouldn’t have given a loaded gun to a moron, but the moron’s party ALSO happened to control Congress. When Condoleeza started talking about smoking guns turning into mushroom clouds, it was clear Bush was going to get the power he wanted.

I don’t know why you and Darth have such a hard time grasping this. LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident to get a resolution passed in Congress. Bush lied about WMD’s, Al Queda, and nuclear weapons to get HIS resoultion passed. Know who gets blamed for Vietnam? Do you think anyone even remembers congressmen from the 60’s? But I guarantee you people have heard of LBJ and McNamara. Do you think they’re going to look back at the 2000 Congress for the mess in Iraq? Lol! Good or bad, Iraq is Bush’s legacy.

Besides, Bush wanted an Iraq war. He was a popular Republican at the time and there’s no way the party was going to go against him. There was one Republican who voted NOT to give Bush authorization out of the entire Congress. Republicans controlled the White House and Congress and they got their little war and now must live with the consequences.

Oh, and I think I heard Rush talking about Hybrid M.P.G. averaging somewhere around 2 nowadays ;)

[Mary]

@Jennifer:

Mary, did you miss that entire Congressional Declaration of War? The details on how to fight the war are up to the President, but he still waited for the DOW.

I just coulnd’t let this pass, cause it’s, ya know, Jen.

Yes, we all missed the “entire Congressional Declaration of War”. Most likely because it doesn’t exist.

I’m about posted out on declarations of war now.

[Jennifer]

@cystic:

I wonder how many of these would have gone along if they thought they were just going to overthrow SH. My thinking is that there might be a lot fewer, and there would be a stronger case against Bush’s little declaration.

Maybe a few less, but I think a majority of the willing went to help us, not because they believed in the cause themselves. If one friend going to fight at the flagpole after school, most other of his friends would attend to ensure it was a fair fight and to lend support. I think this is how most of the coalition is.

@cystic:

between 25-100 000 Iraqi civilian lives

I havn’t seen any documentation to support this number, but let’s assume it’s true. How many civilians died in WWI, WWII, US Civil War, War of 1812, Mexican/American War, American and Indian War, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, etc? I’d assume, as I’d have to without pulling hard figures, that the number is far in excess of the few thousand civilians that have died in Iraq. (And I’m assuming pure, innocent civilians, like cattle farmers, or goat herders or other innocents just going about their normal daily events, not theives, murderers, rapists, terrorists, etc.)

@cystic:

untold Iraqi defenders killed during an unwarranted invasion

It was warranted. At the very least it was warranted because the Iraqi militia fired on US Forces repeatedly over 10 years. Also, I thought most of their “army” scattered into the hills after the initial engagements. They might be included in your civilian count.

@cystic:

the theiving of multi-millions of dollars of Iraqi resources to “rebuild” its infrastructure (dumped into US companies, naturally)

Proof? Sounds like heresay and rumor to me. After all, the US Taxpayer is paying to rebuild Iraq, not Iraq. And btw, most of those US companies over there are small businesses. In fact, Halliburton only hires small businesses to do the work they agree to manage. Halliburton is nothing but a project management firm.

So, I guess you are against the small business and against the working stiff. Which is REALLY weird since most doctors, at least here, are self-employed and you say you are a doctor…does this mean you’re full of self-hatred?

@cystic:

midnight arrests and torture of citizens thought to be against the occupation by the occupiers

Oh we have been SO over this. Puppies in your cells, the smell of bacon frying, minor discomfort in temperature (32-90 degrees), a few sleepless nights and standing naked is NOT torture! Having your fingernails pulled out with pliers is torture, having your toes cut off iwth guitar string is torture, having your eyes popped with white hot pokers is torture.

@cystic:

the destruction of 1800 US solders (in addition to allied) lives (nevermind the wounded etc.)

We’ve gone from killed to destruction….Bear in mind that Chicago had more die then died in Iraq, in BOTH wars. Bear in mind that New Orleans lost more in a day then died in Iraq. Bear in mind that Vietnam lost more in a day then in Iraq. And keep in mind some of those casualties listed are from natural causes or equipment malfunctions.

@cystic:

increased friction between the west and the middle east

Yea, because we always got a warm embrace when any westerner went over there right? I mean, that’s why the state department issed that whole statement from the 70s to the present about how US citizens travelling to the middle east are on their own, they weren’t going to go save you from terrorists. Or how Israel and America were always held in high regard by the fanatics that come to power over there. Right, we were all lovey-dovey until we toppled Saddam….of course, I think we’re a lot more lovey dovey NOW that Saddam is gone. There’s two regimes that like us, the Kuwaitis and the Iraqis, Iran’s comming around and starting to follow the world laws, Arabia’s less fidgity now, etc.

@cystic:

an increase in terrorism in the world

Not an increase. A decrease. They’re just in the spotlight more so it seems like an increase. However, most of the terrorist leaders and a lot of cells are being broken and captured each day. And many of what’s left are rag tag groups working without central leadership trying to annoy us in Iraq. Better there then here anyway. At least there we can focus on one small area, if they were here we’d have to focus there and here and in France and in Germany and in Poland and in Italy……

@cystic:

now this is not my worry, couldn’t the >$85 B that you guys dumped into Iraq be spent in better ways? Maybe in reinforced levees around a couple of cattle fields/cities? Again - not my problem.

Oh, you mean like the 43 billion they had from special taxes in New Orleans to fund evacuation and reinforce the levvies that disapeared? Gotcha.

Why don’t you ever learn that Federal Money can’t be used for the state and state money can’t be used for the feds without a whole

edit - gettin’ tired of this

of public announcements, public approvals, over sight committees, Congressional approval, Executive Approval on both state and federal levels, and, in some cases, judicial approval. This is why New Orleans and all of LA had special taxes built in to collect money over a long period of time so they could afford evacuation in emergency and rebuild their levvies properly. It’s unfortunate that no one can find any of the money…they can find the deposit slips, but not the money…wonder where it all went…