Iriemon

I stated: "There was no vote to invade Iraq in 2002 nor 2003."

That is correct.

__________________
Matthew 5:9

mpg

Of the 27 Democratic Senators who voted for the resolution in October 2002, how many of them opposed the invasion in 2003? How many of them supported it?

__________________
"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength." - Eric Hoffer

Reverend_Hellh0und

Was there an authorization to use force?

__________________
كافر
Never forget those who died.
Never forget those who killed them.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/avatar...ine=1217695450

Iriemon

Under certain conditions and as the President deemed necessary - read for yourself.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) 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 there after 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

Iriemon

Don't know.

Reverend_Hellh0und

Perhaps you can share your opinion on the matter.

Iriemon

My opinion on what? The joint resolution? It speaks for itself. It explained Congress' desire that the President 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 gave the president to use force as he determined necessary. That meant if the President determined it necessary to use force against Iraq he could do it. "Force" could mean anything from enforcing airspace to bombing to full scale invasion and occupation to anything in between.

mpg

He already had the authority for enforcing airspace and bombing.

Reverend_Hellh0und

up to and including invasion you say?


Game, set, match.


Thanks for playing.

Panache

So here's a question...

Has Iraq "complied with all relevant Security Council resolutions" yet?