Reply #6: Yup

[Nicholas_J]

Bush circumvented the resolution...

(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.

http://www.kpid.dk/Iraq%20Resolution%20of%202002.htm

It was required for conressional support for the president to meet the terms stated above. He had to provide evidience that reliance on peaceful means lone would not be able to protect national security, or lead to the U.N. enfocing previous resolutions, or that Iraq was supporting or harboring those responsible for the events of 9/11.

Of coursse Bush circumvented the terms of the act. This act did not provide Bush any support BEFORE, meeting the terms stated above.

Now if he met the terms, and provided Valid evidence, then the letters given to the two noted officials would have triggered ANOTHER vote in order to determine agreement as to whether. If the president had provided valid evidence that the conditions noted above existed.

Now it is my tern to request that those criticising the act prove that the president in ANY WAY, met the terms indicated above. Then you will be correct in stating that the act was a vote for war.

If you cant, back off.

As I have said numerous times, this act is two edged, and Kerry is about to begin a legal assault on the president for breaking a resolution that HE signed into law.

Part of this is to prove that the president circumvented the that diplomacy and working through the U.N. would be futile, andthat the president chose to circumvent the process. Part of this requires proof that the president falisified intelligence as well.


Grahams statements about impeachment are the start of a two pronged vice on the administration.

Kerry has done this before to other presidents, and simply gave them enough rope to hang themselves.