2002 IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION (For Reference and Rebuttal)

lol....just posted that but didn't want to keep pinging you; now we have it doubly for posterity. : )

Well, you never know; we had to "prove" that we were first with the CBS memos when the bloggers blew us off.

Boxer Backed Clinton's Iraq War

* * *

In December 1998, however, after Clinton launched four days of air strikes on Iraq's suspected WMD targets, the California Democrat had a different reaction.

In quotes unearthed Tuesday afternoon by radio host Sean Hannity, Boxer claimed that Saddam had forced Clinton's hand.

"The president had no choice but to act today," she said in a statement issued by her office. "Anyone who questions the timing of his decision ignores the fact that we committed a month ago to act if [chief U.N. weapons inspector] Richard Butler reported that Saddam was not cooperating."

"These critics are blinded by political considerations," Boxer added.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/18/193341.shtml

She is FLAT OUT lying, isn't she?

On several counts:

This resolution only addressing WMD as a casus belli
Percentage of war dead from California
Several abuses of context (e.g., regarding aluminum tubes, considering the Department of Energy an "agency" when Condi referred to only one intelligence agency -- State -- as rejecting the predominant theory).
Repeating the big lie of "no contact" between Iraq and Al Qaeda when multiple contacts (and more, only stopping short of documented operational coordination) have been cited in detail by the 911 Commission, The (unanimous) Senate Intelligence Committee, and other official and credible sources.

And I only caught bits and pieces of the exchanges and wasn't taking any notes. I'm sure there is more.

Yes...and thereafter, the "pajamahadeen" was born....little did they realize that their pejorative term would later be embraced as a badge of honor! : )

http://www.jonesforcalifornia.com/boxer/display_issue.cfm?ID=27

Boxer on Defense and National Security

Boxer 1991 Iraq Policy: Leave Kuwait at the mercy of Saddam - On the floor of the United States Senate in 1991, the same day she voted against removing Saddam from Kuwait by force of International coalition, Boxer suggested that the allies "hold the line at Saudi Arabia" with Kuwait being left to the mercy of Saddam Hussein.

Supported Clinton's Iraq policy, Voted for Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - In contrast to her radical and vocal opposition to the military policies of the two Bush Presidents, Boxer vigorously supported Bill Clinton in all phases of Clinton's Iraq policy, including military action, claiming that critics of Clinton's Iraq responses were "blinded by political considerations."

Boxer Busted on Iraq Lie During Condi Confirmation Hearings

Boxer Rebellion
January 20, 2005

* * *

Boxer forgets that regime change in Iraq had been official U.S. policy in Iraq since 1998, when President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act.

In 2003, Clinton phoned in to CNN's "Larry King Live" during a program honoring Bob Dole on his 80th birthday. In response to a question, he offered the following commentary on Iraq and WMD:

"Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in the inspection process, and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know."
We didn't know. U.N. Resolution 1441 demanded that WMD be accounted for or there would be "serious consequences."
That's why we went to war, and that's why the war was justified.

"Anyone who questions the timing of his decision ignores the fact that we committed a month ago to act if [chief U.N. weapons inspector] Richard Butler reported that Saddam was not cooperating." "These critics are blinded by political considerations," Boxer added.

Speaking of words coming back to haunt her!!! An excellent find!

She lies every time she opens her mouth; her rightous indignation is ill-founded.

IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998 (House of Representatives - October 05, 1998)

Speaking of words coming back to haunt her.

But don't know what good it will do. The MSM won't report this.

Apparently, the Senate did not have a roll call on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, HR 4655, they just had a "debate" and it was passed unanimously.

ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ (Senate - October 07, 1998)

Speaking of words coming back to haunt her!!! An excellent find!

See .. I told ya

These libs are such hypocrites .. all we have to do is go back and read their speechs and comments made on TV

But I'll bectcha they'll still deny every saying

But don't know what good it will do. The MSM won't report this.

Go over their heads and take it to the people

Plus .. I'll betcha FNC would look into this

AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ--Continued -- (Senate - October 09, 2002)

Boxer: What will the casualties be? How much will it cost? How long will we have to stay there? What happens afterward? What is the impact in the region? Will Saddam Hussein use his weapons of mass destruction on the battlefield against our people? And what protections do they have?

I'm still looking for more.

You found this while we were on the live thread, I thought.

21ST CENTURY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT -- (Senate - October 03, 2002)

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that under the conference report rules I be allowed to speak for up to an hour and do it on the subject of Iraq.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

IRAQ

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I say to my friend from West Virginia, the distinguished Senator, a great leader in the Senate, that he has been a voice of sanity and reason. He has been a voice that the Americans have wanted to hear.

This is one of the most solemn duties we have, and the fact that it was going to be rushed and the fact that it came right before an election and the fact that we have so many unanswered questions, those things are weighing on this Senator's shoulders. I am so pleased the Senator from West Virginia, from his perspective, as someone who has served so well and for so long, was able to speak out as he has.

I do not know where we will wind up on this, but I do know we are going to have alternatives. I think the fact that we will have alternatives, in many ways, is because the Senator from West Virginia from day 1--remember the day 1--when our President did not even want to come to Congress, when his staff was saying to the President it was not necessary, that the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, said, just a moment, read the Constitution.

So before I begin, I thank my friend for his remarks.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from the great State of California for her gracious remarks. I thank her, too, for what she stands for, for standing up for the Constitution and for representing the people of her great State so well, so consistently, and so effectively.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, it means a great deal to me that the Senator has said these words.

One of the most sacred, one of the most humbling, one of the most important--let me say the most important--roles Congress has to play

is determining whether our country should send its sons and daughters to war.

The role of Congress in war and peace must not be ignored. We can read it right out of the Constitution. Article I, section 8, says the following: The Congress shall have power to declare war.

What has made me proud is that the American people understand this. I believe they understand it better than some in the administration who started off in August saying the President did not have to come to Congress in order to go to war with Iraq. To be specific, on August 26, the Washington Post quoted a senior administration official who said:

We don't want to be in the legal position of asking Congress to authorize the use of force when the President already has the full authority. We don't want, in getting a resolution, to have conceded that one was constitutionally necessary.

It is clear the American people will not support a war against Iraq without the agreement of Congress. According to a USA Today-CNN poll, 69 percent of the American people favored military action with the support of Congress; only 37 percent favored military action if Congress opposed the move. It is also important to point out that 79 percent of the American people support the use of force if it were supported by the United Nations; only 37 percent favored action without United Nations support.

This is not a minor point. This administration did not want to come to Congress; and then, when it decided to do so because--frankly, they understood the views of the American people--they sent over a resolution which was the most incredible blank check I have ever seen. Its provisions basically said that even if Iraq complied with inspection and dismantlement, the administration could still go to war if Iraq failed to provide documentation, for example, on Kuwaiti POWs or because of its illicit trade outside the Oil-for-Food Program. Those issues certainly need to be addressed. There are very few people--I don't know of any--who believe those reasons should be enough to send our men and women and our bombs to Iraq.

In addition, the original resolution gave the President the authority to use force not only in Iraq but in the entire

[Page: S9878]  GPO's PDF

region. When those in Congress--mostly Democrats but some Republicans, too--said we needed to deliberate on this important issue, take time to debate it and discuss it and ask questions, we were hit by a barrage of criticism from the Republican leadership and immediately the issue was made political.

Representative Tom Davis, Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said:

People are going to want to know before the election where their representatives stand.

Now, despite this pressure, I am proud to say my colleagues are not sitting back. We are going to fulfill our obligations under the Constitution. We are fulfilling our obligations to debate war and peace. We are not allowing this administration to ignore our views, our opinions, and our heartfelt concerns about America's sons and daughters and the innocent victims of war.

While there are some in the administration who believe taking up the Iraq issue now will hurt Democrats, I am not so sure. I am not so sure the American people want us to roll over and be silent on this. I am not so sure the American people

don't want us to see it as our duty to check and balance this administration. Already, because of our voices, the resolution offered by the President has been changed. In my view, it is still a very blank check for war with Iraq. I certainly cannot support a blank check. I think it is an affront to the people of this country to do that. Originally, it was an even blanker check, allowing the President to go to war anyplace in the region.

The role of checks and balances that we play is already evident. I know that. I also know in the greatest country on the face of this Earth, in the country that is great because of its middle class and its productivity, in that country, in our country, it is necessary to not only deal with the issue of Iraq, to deal with the issue of terrorism, to protect our people when they fly in an airplane or walk past a nuclear plant or a chemical plant or cross a bridge, it is also important to deal with the impact of this administration's economic record: The worse stock market decline in 70 years, the worst economic growth in 50 years, the greatest loss of jobs in the private sector in 50 years, and the threat that people feel from retirement insecurity and job insecurity, runaway health care costs, and a falling median income.

Now, there are those who say the administration is bringing up Iraq now to avoid scrutiny from this volatile and miserable economy. There have been memos that show this to be their strategy. There have been anonymous statements to this effect. And whether that is true or not, I leave to the American people. I trust the American people to look at this.

We must take care of the security of the American people. Economic security is part of that. I believe this administration is AWOL in this regard. As we deal with foreign policy challenges, we Democrats will insist we deal with domestic challenges, too. And again, let the people decide if they agree with us or not.

This I will also say clearly: We are told constantly that the President has not decided yet whether he wants to go to war with Iraq. We hear it over and over. I sit on the Foreign Relations Committee. I am proud to sit on that committee. I chair the terrorism subcommittee. Recently, Colin Powell said to us in an open hearing:

Of course the President has not made any decision with regard to military action. He's still hopeful for a political solution, a diplomatic solution.

Secretary Rumsfeld said:

The President's not made a decision with respect to Iraq.

National Security Adviser Rice said:

The President has not made a decision that the use of military force is the best option.

Ari Fleischer, the press spokesman, makes that same statement day after day after day.

I ask, if the President hasn't decided to go to war yet, if the administration has not decided to go to war yet, if the military has not been told there is going to be a war, then why is the President coming to Congress now, before he has made a somber decision, and before he has answered many key questions?

If our questions could be answered, the many questions we have, it would be one thing. However, I want to say unequivocally that the myriad of questions I have asked have not been answered.

In good conscience, how can I vote to take our country to war alone, which is what the President wants from us, without allies and without the facts that I need to fulfill my responsibilities to the people of California.

Madam President, you know my State very well. We have more than 30 million people. Out of the 880,000 reservists in the military, 61,000 are from California. I owe them the best decision I can make. Those reservists, as Senator Inouye has pointed out, many of them have families. At times you will have a wife and a husband called up to go into the danger zone. I need my questions answered before I could vote to send this country, alone--alone--into battle.

Here are the questions I have asked in one forum or another. Here are the questions that I either do not have answers to or the answers I have are incomplete. If we give the President the blank check he is asking for, which I will not vote for, if we give him the go-it-alone preemptive strike authority, which I will not vote for, then I think those who are considering voting for that ought to ask these questions. I will lay them out.

How many U.S. troops would be involved?

What are the projected casualties?

Would the United States have to foot the entire cost of using force against Iraq?

If not, which nations will provide financial support?

Which nations will provide military support?

What will the cost be to rebuild Iraq?

How long would our troops need to stay there?

Would they be a target for terrorists?

What will the impact be on our fight against terrorism?

Will Iraq use chemical or biological weapons against our troops?

Will Iraq launch chemical or biological weapons against Israel?

How will Israel respond?

What impact will that have?

How will we secure Iraqi chemical and biological weapons once the fighting starts?

How do we make sure such weapons do not get into the hands of terrorists or terrorist nations?

[Note she does not say "ARE there WMDs?" ~ Oxen]

How do we make sure that Iraqi weapons experts, from Iraq, do not migrate to terrorist organizations or terrorist states?

Have we given enough thought to alternatives to avoid war?

Why haven't we worked with the United Nations to try Saddam Hussein as a war criminal? He is a war criminal.

During the Foreign Relations Committee hearing with Secretary Albright, I raised the idea put forward by the Carnegie Endowment on coerced inspections. Has this or a similar idea been pursued?

If we are concerned about Saddam Hussein acquiring weapons of mass destruction, why are we not fully supporting the Nunn-Lugar weapons dismantlement program?

I do not doubt that Iraq is up to no good. I know they are. That is why I voted for the Iraq Liberation Act. We know that Iraq has biological and chemical weapons and that they used them against Iran and against its own Kurdish minority. We know that following the Persian Gulf war, Iraq promised to abide by the demands of the U.N. but failed to live up to its commitment. They have not allowed unfettered inspections. They have lied about chemical and biological weapons programs. And they continue to seek the capability to produce nuclear weapons.

I do not doubt that there are some members of al-Qaida in Iraq. But there is al-Qaida in Syria. There is al-Qaida in Africa. There is al-Qaida in Pakistan and in Afghanistan. There are cells in 60 nations, including the United States of America.

The fight against bin Laden and his organization must not be weakened. I want to quote what the head of our Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator BOB GRAHAM, has to say about this. You and I know he is not a man of overstatement. He said:

At this point I think Iraq is a primary distraction from achieving our goals of reducing the threat of international terrorism.

[Page: S9879]  GPO's PDF

Listen to what Wesley Clark has said. He headed our NATO troops.

Unilateral U.S. action today would disrupt the war against al-Qaida.

Despite statements by staff to the contrary, the President appears to want to go it alone in war when we are already in a war. According to the President, we are in a war, one that will require all of our wits and lots of our treasure, both in human capital and in tax dollars.

I do not think it is enough to be critical of this blank check resolution the President is supporting. I want to say how I would approach this question. Iraq must be held to its word, as expressed in U.N. resolutions, that it will submit to thorough inspections and dismantlement of weapons of mass destruction, period.

Let's repeat that. Iraq must be held to its word that it will submit to thorough inspections, unfettered inspections, and dismantlement of weapons of mass destruction, period. That is what they agreed to. They signed on the dotted line to do it. And that is what must happen. Those were United Nations resolutions, and we must work for an updated resolution ensuring that such unfettered inspections do take place or there will be consequences. These weapons are a threat to the world, and the world must respond. I believe if we handle this right, the world will respond.

But if our allies believe we have not made the case, if they believe this is a political issue here, or if they believe it is a grudge match here, or if they believe that the whole thing is being manipulated for domestic political reasons, I believe that will hurt our Nation. I believe that will isolate us. I do not think that is a good path for our country.

Can we rule the world with our weapons and our guns and our might? I am sure we can. I know we can.

Can we win every military confrontation that anyone could ever imagine? Yes. We can.

But I believe the greatness of our Nation has been built on other things: The power of our persuasion, not the power of our arsenal; the power of our ideals, not the power of our threats; the power and greatness of our people, not the power and the greatness of our machines.

America at her best has been seen as a beacon of hope, not fear; an example not of ``Might makes right,'' but ``Might backing right.'' What is right at a time like this? I believe it is laying out a path for peace, not just a path for war; trying everything we can to avoid chaos and devastation to our own and to innocent civilians who may well be used as pawns in urban warfare.

I believed that Madeleine Albright, the former Secretary of State under President Clinton, and Dr. Henry Kissinger laid out a path for peace when they spoke before the Foreign Relations Committee. They talked about unfettered inspections and dismantlement of weapons of mass destruction. As they said, and I agree, it will not be easy. Maybe it will be impossible. But there is no doubt in my mind that we should lay out that path and try for complete, unfettered inspections, with nothing off limits, to be followed by dismantlement of those weapons.

For those who say it will never work, maybe they are right. But we have never pulled the massive trigger of our weapons on a nation that has not attacked us first. At the least--at the least--we should see if we can exhaust all other options.

That is why I support the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator CARL LEVIN, and his resolution that will be introduced. This is what it does:

No. 1, it urges the United Nations Security Council to quickly adopt a resolution that demands immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access for U.N. inspectors so that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and prohibited missiles will be destroyed. [1441 said that and that didn't work ~ Oxen]

No. 2, it urges this new U.N. Security Council resolution to authorize the use of necessary and appropriate force by U.N. member states to enforce the resolution if Iraq refuses to comply.

No. 3, it reaffirms that, under international law and the U.N. Charter, the United States has the inherent right to self-defense.

No. 4, it authorizes the use U.S. Armed Forces pursuant to the new U.N. Security Council resolution that deals with weapons of mass destruction.

In closing, let me say very clearly that I will not vote for a blank check for unilateral action. I also will not vote for a resolution that is dressed up to look like Congress has powers when, in fact, all the words really call for are consultations and determinations.

That is when Senator Byrd said ``pretty'' words. He said, ``Pretty, pretty, pretty words.'' Sounds good--consultations and determinations. What does it really mean? Nothing. It means the administration tells us what they think. We already know what they think.

To me, consultations and determinations without a vote by Congress are like a computer that is not plugged in. It looks good, it looks powerful, it looks impressive, but it does nothing.

I didn't come to the Senate for the title. I didn't come to the Senate to debate meaninglessly on the Senate floor. [HA! Could have fooled me!! ~ Oxen] I didn't come to the Senate to do nothing. I didn't come to the Senate to run away from a hard vote. I came to uphold the duties of my office. I came to represent the people of California.

In the past 4 years, I have voted to use force twice--once against Milosevic to stop a genocide and once after September 11 when we suffered a barbarous attack. But, in this case, if any President wants to go to war alone or outside the type of coalitions we have built for the war on terror, or the last Persian Gulf war, then let him come to the American people, through the Congress for another debate and a vote.

It is one thing to go with a coalition. It is one thing to determine that we will be part of a multinational force. It is another thing to do it alone, without a specific vote of the Congress before the President has decided to do so. As I have said, his aides keep telling us he has not made the decision. So why do we have to give him a blank check today? If he wants to go it alone, if he wants to send my people to a place where we don't even know if chemical or biological weapons will be used [Again not if they're there ~ Oxen], we don't even know what the estimates of casualties are, we don't even know what it is going to cost, we don't even know how long we are going to have to stay there, we don't know what will happen if Israel responds--we don't know so many things--I don't think it is asking too much to ask my colleagues to support a resolution by Senator Levin. He said that if he wants to go it alone, then the President has to come back.

In the CARL LEVIN resolution, it is implicit that he must come back if he wants to go it alone. CARL LEVIN's resolution authorizes force as part of the U.N. enforcement action to dismantle Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But again, if the President wants to go it alone, he must come back to us.

I believe the people of my State expect me, on their behalf, to get my questions and their questions answered, not to engage in guesswork, and, above all, not to abdicate my responsibility as a Senator to anyone else. If our Founders wanted the President--or any President--to have the power to go to war without our consent, they would have said so. But, again, this is what our Founders said in article I, section 8: Congress shall have power to declare war.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Bump

I'll betcha FNC would look into this

I only caught the end of Eddie interviewing a Rat senator (who defended Boxer shorts, IMHO) and a Pubbie senator (who said Boxer shorts shouldn't have called Condi a liar). I don't remember their names, and didn't see the whole interview. But it doesn't appear that they are going to let Boxer shorts get away with trashing Condi.

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

107th CONGRESS 2d Session H. J. RES. 114 October 10, 2002
JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. 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 Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 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'; 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 and 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 resolution 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 United States 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 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) 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 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994); Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress 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 Resolution 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 of 1998 (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 interests 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 Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'. 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 regarding 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 regarding 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. (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. (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 joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- 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 the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338). (b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- 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 the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress. (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (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 such resolution.