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 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' (Public Law 105-235);

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 an 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 resolutions 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 American 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 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 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, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) 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 Resolutions 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 (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 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 the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'.

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 applicable to 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.

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 resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(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 resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) 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 Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) 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 Public Law 93-148 (the Wap Xnwers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of 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 Public Law 102-1.

John Thomas Bennett - 5/29/2009

I agree that there were many problems with the intervention. I am trying to understand the legal aspects. Perhaps you could explain more about the Resolution in terms of law.

Assisting the Iraqis to establish democracy is one of the things we are doing. It is not the rationale for our involvement. Do you understand the difference?
Building a democracy was necessary to give effect to Section 3(a)(1). If we did not help Iraqis establish the democracy which they wanted, then Iraq would be reduced to the disorder of Afghanistan. That would be a security threat. The purpose of 3(a)(1) was to protect our security. Thus, the resolution gave the needed authorization to support democratization.
You may disagree that democracy would lead to security. That is a question of fact though, or a question of opinion. As a matter of law, the Congress gave authorization to use force to protect security. The use of force is a broad authorization, and unless Congress specifically states that democracy-building is excluded, there is no basis for saying that democracy-building is not allowed.
I would like to see you make a stronger case that democracy-building was not legally authorized. I am not asking about your opinion of the strategy, I am asking your opinion about legal authorization and only legal authorization.

As for WMD and terrorism, briefly:
1. WMD- We were concerned about WMD "programs."
Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." That was his explanation for voting to approve force (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/) The word "programs" includes development of weapons. That does not mean complete weapons waiting on a launching pad. If you have another interpretation of the word, then it is your misinterpretation that leads you astray. Sure we never found a pretty bomb sitting somewhere, but that is irrelevant. I challenge you to prove that WMD development was not taking place.

2. terrorism- Even liberal news sources state unequivocally that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before the U.S. intervention (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1005-01.htm)

If you do not know who Zarqawi was, you would benefit from these two articles by liberal newspapers:
1. Scott Wilson and Al Kamen. “'Global War On Terror' Is Given New Name.” Washington Post. March 25, 2009; Page A04.

2. Burns, John F. “Tape in Name of Leading Insurgent Declares 'All-Out War' on Iraq Elections and Democracy.” New York Times. January 24, 2005.

josh davidson - 1/11/2006

Typical liberal response. Don't back up any of your insults with facts. Just attack those who oppose your twisted America hating ideologies.

You say to "look this stuff up before you post it". Look these little bits of info up:

1)Carter was President when the Iraq-Iran war began, the administration did nothing when Iraq invaded Iran in the late 70's. The U.S. wanted a war between the two in order to keep both under control. Saddam was told by the Carter administration that once he defeated Iran, we would not step in as he absorbed Kuwait back into Iraq as it had been in the Ottoman Empire(plus it was a political strategy for Hussein, with Iran defeated and Kuwait back, Iraq would be the dominant power in the region). We never thought Iraq could defeat Iran and inturn go after Kuwait. That is where the whole Iran-Contra affair came in.
2) The U.S. did everything it could to make sure Iraq did not win against Iran. We supplied HAWK surface to air missiles and TOW antitank missiles to Iran to stave off an Iranian defeat, while supplying Iraq with the weapons it needed to continue fighting.
3)Libs went after Reagan and North, knowing that this strategy had been in place for almost a decade, started by Carter!!
4)FDR sided with a genocidal maniac in WWII---Stalin, to defeat another maniac--Hitler. We used Soviet blood to sap the Germans, and did not attack France until the sapping was done. That alliance allowed Stalin's Soviet Union to emerge as a superpower. Thank God for Ronnie "Raygun" as you say for saving us from that.
5)We are not in Iraq for Oil. Control of the Persian Gulf oil at the cost of military was and is not the goal. However, oil is the key to controlling Saudi Arabia. They are huge monetary supporters of Al Qaeda. The country is also in economic debt, with the embargoes on Iraqi oil, the Sauds could continue their position in the oil industry. But if the U.S. could get Iraqi oil back on the market, prices would drop and the Sauds would lose money. This would help keep the House of Saud in check which in turn could keep their people supplying Al Qaeda in check.
6)Our mere presence in Iraq along the Saudi border is going to help to control the Sauds as well. They are used to having us defend them from Iraq on that border, now we will be the threat to their Al Qaeda backing asses.
7)U.S. presence in Iraq is essential to the war on terror. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria are all linked to Al Qaeda in some form or another- Iran as a safe haven for its members, Syria also as a training ground and passageway(payed off by Bin Laden).
8)Check Snopes to see quotes from your fellow libs stating the case for WMD. This has been stated over and over.
9)I know this one will hurt, but check Boortz.com and the "something to ignore" section from the archives(Jan 10). There is an article about millions of pieces of evidence coroborating the notion that Iraq was training terrorists, yes even a branch of Al Qaeda in three separate areas of Iraq from 1999-2002. Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak. This training was done by the Iraqi elite military units. The Defense Intelligence Agency is working on declassifying this evidence. STAY TUNED FOR THEIR RELEASE!!! Oh wait, the liberal media probably won't mention something that actually supports Bush.
11)By saying that Saddam kept his nation largely peaceful do you mean by raping the women of his country, training terrorists, killing his own son in law, ignoring UN resolutions(As was stated in the joint resolution from Congress--dems included--- authorizing the President to use military action against Iraq), and torturing and killing those who opposed his regime?

Anyway lib, the connection between Iraq and the attacks of 9/11 are there. Iraq did not attack us. However, the invasion of Iraq has created a new military and political reality in the region. The Muslim countries in that region are now more leary of us, will they get it next? In turn, we are now receiving much better intelligence from these areas. These intelligence leads have helped the U.S. to disrupt potential attacks during the last two years.

Thank you for having such a narrow mind, and for lashing out with profanity at all who don't think like you- Dick.

josh davidson - 1/11/2006

Typical liberal response. Don't back up any of your insults with facts. Just attack those who oppose your twisted America hating ideologies.

You say to "look this stuff up before you post it". Look these little bits of info up:

1)Carter was President when the Iraq-Iran war began, the administration did nothing when Iraq invaded Iran in the late 70's. The U.S. wanted a war between the two in order to keep both under control. Saddam was told by the Carter administration that once he defeated Iran, we would not step in as he absorbed Kuwait back into Iraq as it had been in the Ottoman Empire(plus it was a political strategy for Hussein, with Iran defeated and Kuwait back, Iraq would be the dominant power in the region). We never thought Iraq could defeat Iran and inturn go after Kuwait. That is where the whole Iran-Contra affair came in.
2) The U.S. did everything it could to make sure Iraq did not win against Iran. We supplied HAWK surface to air missiles and TOW antitank missiles to Iran to stave off an Iranian defeat, while supplying Iraq with the weapons it needed to continue fighting.
3)Libs went after Reagan and North, knowing that this strategy had been in place for almost a decade, started by Carter!!
4)FDR sided with a genocidal maniac in WWII---Stalin, to defeat another maniac--Hitler. We used Soviet blood to sap the Germans, and did not attack France until the sapping was done. That alliance allowed Stalin's Soviet Union to emerge as a superpower. Thank God for Ronnie "Raygun" as you say for saving us from that.
5)We are not in Iraq for Oil. Control of the Persian Gulf oil at the cost of military was and is not the goal. However, oil is the key to controlling Saudi Arabia. They are huge monetary supporters of Al Qaeda. The country is also in economic debt, with the embargoes on Iraqi oil, the Sauds could continue their position in the oil industry. But if the U.S. could get Iraqi oil back on the market, prices would drop and the Sauds would lose money. This would help keep the House of Saud in check which in turn could keep their people supplying Al Qaeda in check.
6)Our mere presence in Iraq along the Saudi border is going to help to control the Sauds as well. They are used to having us defend them from Iraq on that border, now we will be the threat to their Al Qaeda backing asses.
7)U.S. presence in Iraq is essential to the war on terror. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria are all linked to Al Qaeda in some form or another- Iran as a safe haven for its members, Syria also as a training ground and passageway(payed off by Bin Laden).
8)Check Snopes to see quotes from your fellow libs stating the case for WMD. This has been stated over and over.
9)I know this one will hurt, but check Boortz.com and the "something to ignore" section from the archives(Jan 10). There is an article about millions of pieces of evidence coroborating the notion that Iraq was training terrorists, yes even a branch of Al Qaeda in three separate areas of Iraq from 1999-2002. Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak. This training was done by the Iraqi elite military units. The Defense Intelligence Agency is working on declassifying this evidence. STAY TUNED FOR THEIR RELEASE!!! Oh wait, the liberal media probably won't mention something that actually supports Bush.
11)By saying that Saddam kept his nation largely peaceful do you mean by raping the women of his country, training terrorists, killing his own son in law, ignoring UN resolutions(As was stated in the joint resolution from Congress--dems included--- authorizing the President to use military action against Iraq), and torturing and killing those who opposed his regime?

Anyway lib, the connection between Iraq and the attacks of 9/11 are there. Iraq did not attack us. However, the invasion of Iraq has created a new military and political reality in the region. The Muslim countries in that region are now more leary of us, will they get it next? In turn, we are now receiving much better intelligence from these areas. These intelligence leads have helped the U.S. to disrupt potential attacks during the last two years.

Thank you for having such a narrow mind, and for lashing out with profanity at all who don't think like you- Dick.

Bob Jones - 11/23/2005

Clearly, the Iraq "war" (it is undeclared by Congress, so this is not a war, but a declaration to use military force in more of a police action) has not gone well.

Many other countries did not believe the charges. Saddam is indeed a very nasty man. This resolution clearly allowed us to remove him from power, which we did, and to get them on the road towards democracy, which we did.

The military is no longer a solution to what ails Iraq today. Our military continues to incite violence as would any nation that had a foreign, occupying military force that is housed in the traditional seat of power in Iraq. Most Iraqis now want us to leave. The time is now.

Leaving does not mean retreat, surrender, cut and run or any other lame defense of our continued folly in there. We managed to topple both Afghanistan and Iraq in short order, so it's unlikely any nation will think we're pussies for leaving.

If Iran or the Taliban or Al Qaeda attempt to take over Iraq, we can surely return and bomb them out of power once again.

But do we really think Iraqis are so ignorant and worthless that they won't defend their own country? And if they hate freedoms and democracy so much, why are they voting? And if so, any attempt at us forcing democracy on an unwilling population is doomed.

We cannot keep killing people and wasting billions of dollars each week on Iraq when we could easily keep from going further in debt or at the very least spending it on good projects to help Americans.

The longer we stay in Iraq, the weaker we will look in the eyes of enemy, and the worse our intentions will be interpretted. Clearly, after 10 years, the Soviets pulled out. We pulled out of Vietnam. Do we really think we can just stay and spend and kill and get almost nothing positive in return?

It cannot last politically or economically.

Our soldiers did their job. When Bush declared "mission accomplished," we really were done. At that point, the UN and other forces could have helped move along democracy and creating the new nation. How many years does it take to train Iraqis to fight for themselves? If it takes so much longer than boot camp in the U.S., maybe Iraqis aren't much of a threat to us.

Anyway, the time to leave is now, before we dig ourselves so deep that the shame and loss can never be recouped.

Better to leave now and return later if things go wrong than to be responsible for the daily bullshit that is today's Iraq, with torturing and terrorism ruling the day as they fight against an ongoing occupation.

Iraqis get it already. Saddam is bad, but he's gone and in jail. They don't need us anymore.

Bill Smodgefeld - 11/22/2005

The entire invasion and occupation was completely illegal from the start. Bush was required to PROVE that Iraq had either attacked the US (of course, it hadn't), or that it posed an immediate threat to the US. He failed to make either case, thus the resolution was never made legal.

Not to mention the fact that he was supposed to issue reports to congress every 60 days, which he has completely failed to do.

A democratic congress would've had him impeached and facing war crimes tribunals already. The only reason he remains in power to this point is that a highly corrupt, extremely partisan and highly anti-American GOP majority has a death grip on American politics.

Bill Smodgefeld - 11/22/2005

What a moron. Is it a coincidence that all BA supporters are ignorant dipshits? Me thinks not.

//Congress and the rest of the world knows that Saddam had and used chemical weapons in war and peace time, FACT.//

With the blessings of Rancid Ronnie Raygun, Poppy Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney, no less. Ooops. Forgot that little fact, didn't ya, genius?



//We all know that he invaded his neighbor, FACT.//

Again, with the blessing of Poppy Bush and his cabal. You need to look this stuff up before you start posting this nonsense, bucko.




//We know that he waged war with other neighbors,and used chemical weapons during that war, FACT.//

With the US supporting both sides during the Iran/Iraq war, unbelievably. Rummy even graciously offered targeting coordinates and weather information, so Saddam could make the best use of his chemical weapons. Wasn't that nice of him?




//We know that Saddam harbored terorists and allowed them to train just south of Baghdad (Salmon Pak, Saddam knew everything that went on in his country), FACT.//

Actually, this is complete, 100% bullshit that has been entirely refuted. Nice try, dickwad.




//Congress saw the same intelegence info. that the President did .//

Yet another reichwing fantasy/lie. Sorry, you lose again.




//"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)" FACT.//

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism, fuckstick. Jeezus, you people are like a broken fucking record. What the hell is wrong with you, anyway? Mommy drop you on your head as a babe? Fucking clueless idiot.




//untry that harbors terrorists must be delt with, some will be delt with at a table, but some will need to be delt with by force.//

Dumb fuck. Saddam/Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11. What a fucking moron.




//Saddam was given plenty of time, and plenty of resolutions, to prove that he had destroyed the weapons that we know he had.//

He was doing everything in his power to do just that, when your boy illegally invaded and began his Vietnam quagmire.




//What did he have to hide?//

Nothing, as has been proven quite amptly since the illegal, stupid folly.



//Why are some more willing to take Saddam's side?//

You mean like Raygun, Poppy Bush, Rummy, and Cheney in the late 80's, while he was "gassing his own people?" Or, do you mean like Cheney in the late 90's, when he found a way around US federal law in order to allow a subsidiary of his pet Halliburton do business with his pal, Saddam?




//Is it just because they HATE Bush so much?//

Bush is an idiot, but I don't personally hate him. He's done more to damage and cripple the GOP for generations than any democrat could've ever managed alone. He will forever be despised and looked down upon, as the architect of an illegal, entirely unnecessary war that mrudered tens of thousands of completely innocent men, women, and children. He will become known as a symbol to the country as to why they should never vote for another republican as long as they live. We all owe Bush a great debt of gratitude.




//These are the same people that say we should jump into Africa to stop genocide.//

Yeah, what about that mess? Mean, nasty leader killing his own people, yet no clamor for illegal war from you fucking lunatic warmongerers. Why not? Oh yeah...no oil.




//WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK WAS HAPPENING IN IRAQ?//

Iraq was a nation that had been left virtually powerless by the Gulf War (yet another illegal Bush war), and 12 years of tough UN sanctions. Saddam still kept the nation largely peaceful, however. In fact, there was never a recorded suicide bomb attack throughout Saddam's reign of that country. Weird, huh?



//Torture and inprisonment of men, women and children.//

That's what WE'RE doing now, monkey shit. Same prisons, different management. Big progress. Time for regime change in Washington.




//Chemical attacks on his own citizens, harbored terrorists.//

You mean like us dumping phosporus chemical bombs on innocent men, women, and children in Fallujah, and burning them all alive?




//But liberals hate Bush so much that they would allow this to continue.//

No, actually, we want us OUT of Iraq, NOW, because we never belonged there and our presence is destroying the soul of both nations. As long as this illegal, immoral, unjust war for profit continues, we will continue to wither and die as a nation of democracy. We are doomed on this path.




//What we have done, and are doing is just, FACT.//

You're a fucking idiot.





//Liberals need to put away the hate, FACT. //

Wingnuts need to get a fucking clue. Goddamned dangerous fucking fools.

Don DePalma - 7/8/2005

Congress and the rest of the world knows that Saddam had and used chemical weapons in war and peace time, FACT. We all know that he invaded his neighbor, FACT. We know that he waged war with other neighbors,and used chemical weapons during that war, FACT. We know that Saddam harbored terorists and allowed them to train just south of Baghdad (Salmon Pak, Saddam knew everything that went on in his country), FACT. Congress saw the same intelegence info. that the President did . "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)" FACT. Any country that harbors terrorists must be delt with, some will be delt with at a table, but some will need to be delt with by force. Saddam was given plenty of time, and plenty of resolutions, to prove that he had destroyed the weapons that we know he had. What did he have to hide? Why are some more willing to take Saddam's side? Is it just because they HATE Bush so much? These are the same people that say we should jump into Africa to stop genocide. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK WAS HAPPENING IN IRAQ? Torture and inprisonment of men, women and children. Chemical attacks on his own citizens, harbored terrorists. But liberals hate Bush so much that they would allow this to continue. What we have done, and are doing is just, FACT. Liberals need to put away the hate, FACT.

Dennis J. Kennedy - 10/8/2004

I'm not a lawyer (thank God), but it seems to me that Section 3 authorizes the President to wage war to defend U.S. national security and to enforce relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, NOT to build a democratic nation in Iraq. Since WMD and links to international terrorism have been greatly disproven, the President has no mandate or authority under this resolution for continuing the war.

Agnes Vadas - 1/24/2004

Unbelievable. It is well-known that no weapons of mass-destruction were found in spite of extensive search costing 60-70 millions. What is this for? To tell people that Bush didn't lie? Everybody knows he did. And it's well known that he planned this war before 9/11 and before becoming President. Because his heart was bleeding for the Iraqui people or because of oil?