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

[Ed Davie]

I keep hearing of this but I would like to see a 
list of what it consists of.
Ed
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ron D'Eau Claire
  To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
  Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 7:56 PM
  Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Resolution: Iraq is no 
longer a treat to the US and the UN resolutions 
against Saddam are no longer relevant.


  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


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