[Grovenet] Resolution: Iraq is no longer a treat to the US and the UN resolutions against Saddam are no longer relevant.

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

Whatever happened to all the "pork" the Democratic congress dumped into the
funding bill?

Yeah, they are saying, We support the troops, if I get XXX millions for my
pet project at home...

If it's still there, by vetoing the bill the President cuts off an obscene
money grab by the Democratic majority in the Congress and likely a number of
Republicans who have joined forces. I haven't kept track of all the
additions tacked onto that bill. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 



-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 6:28 PM
To: grovenet
Subject: [Grovenet] Resolution: Iraq is no longer a treat to the US and the
UN resolutions against Saddam are no longer relevant.


There seems to be a question in circulation asking if Congress can  
limit the activities of the military in Iraq, or even pull them  
home.  They already limited the President's actions when they gave  
Bush permission to invade Iraq to eliminate the treat to the US from  
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.

************************************************************************ 
********************************
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces  
Against 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."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
************************************************************************ 
*********************************

1) What is the "continuing threat posed by Iraq" that requires  
defense of our national security?

2)  What "United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq"  
are still in relevant?

Those are the only two questions that need to be answered to  
determine if the President has authority to conduct military  
operations in Iraq.  If neither apply, the authorization is sunset.

I suggest that Al-Qaeda is not the government of Iraq, and never had  
authority or weapons in Iraq until after the Bush invasion.  I  
suggest that the UN resolutions governed the "no fly zone",  
government persecution of Iraq citizens, and inspection of weapon's  
production facilities, and I suspect that the current Iraqi  
government is in full compliance with all of them.

The job of nation building may not be done, and the job of building a  
democratic Iraq may not be done.  But, that wasn't in the  
authorization to go to war.

David


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet