Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I need a little backup to defend Bush with a friend

Posted on 01/25/2005 6:28:56 AM PST by asil567

I am sorry to always bother people with my questions, I just know that I like President Bush and feel pretty confident in his choices for our country, I just have a hard time defending him when confronted. Thanks for any help.

This is what my friend wrote to me: One thing about Bush, the start of an argument, jk, I just think the entire administration has used the war on terror, american pride and our armies to line their pockets with money. Their dishonesty is proven, and they act like nothing happened. The whole reason they went to Iraq was WMD. There were none there, and they knew it. So then they link Al-Queda w/ Hussein, when that is completely false. Anyway, they blow up two entire countries. Afghanistan and Iraq, and who gets the job to rebuild those countries w/ gov't contracts. Halliburton, former CEO Dick Cheney, the devil himself. Hmm!!! there's billions of dollars. Now they are going to go into Iran. to democratize the Middle East. they have been fighting over there for 3000 years...how is the US going to change that? And why are we really there? OIL!!! Must keep that going so we can build gas-guzzling trucks and keep our precious industries afloat.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

1 posted on 01/25/2005 6:28:56 AM PST by asil567
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: asil567; Peach
Their dishonesty is proven

Ask for the "proof". Then direct them to Peach's thread today regarding WMD.

2 posted on 01/25/2005 6:30:40 AM PST by RushCrush (GWB: Saving your ass whether you like it or not!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: asil567
My first reply would be:

If it's all about the OIL, then why the &#$@ are gas prices so damn high? We need to go get OUR oil!!!

Really pi--es the libs off when you say that.

3 posted on 01/25/2005 6:31:25 AM PST by RockinRight (Sanford for President in '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: asil567

All of your friends arguments are anecdotal. Ask him/her to source the "PROOF" of the charges. Michael Moore's movie is not proof. My son made the same charges and he whithered when I asked him to source his proofs.


4 posted on 01/25/2005 6:32:56 AM PST by PH07718
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: asil567

'This is what my friend wrote to me: One thing about Bush, the start of an argument, jk, I just think the entire administration has used the war on terror, american pride and our armies to line their pockets with money. . . . And why are we really there? OIL!!! Must keep that going so we can build gas-guzzling trucks and keep our precious industries afloat.'

http://home.earthlink.net/~j.s.ryan/writings/warforoil.html


5 posted on 01/25/2005 6:33:41 AM PST by MisterKnowItAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: asil567

Ask him exactly Cheney gets money from Halliburton's contracts. Besides, inform him that Halliburton is one of the largest oil services contractors in the world with experience in wartorn countries so therefore is the logical choice.

Ask them how exactly GW Bush profits from the oil industry.

Tell him to stop speculating and actually provide a decent argument as to HOW they profit.

I used to work for Fugro and have yet to see 1 cent of work they have done since I quit!


6 posted on 01/25/2005 6:34:14 AM PST by ruiner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

ask them why jahidists are being caught worldwide trying to procure nuclear materials.

where's the thanks for US help in saving Muslim's WW => tsunami, Bosnia, Somalia, Kuwait, Aphganistan (twice), etc.


7 posted on 01/25/2005 6:35:01 AM PST by NCCarrs (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/30/quake.usa.editorial.reut/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: asil567

Click on my name and then look at the links at the top of my home page, they explain the links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and reasons why we went to war.

Your friend won't believe anything you say anyway, but you may make them mad.


8 posted on 01/25/2005 6:35:17 AM PST by eyespysomething (I'm speechless here, but don't worry, it won't last long. Ask my husband.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: asil567

Why do you think you have a hard time defending him? Do those others have to ask for help in attacking him?.....just food for thought


9 posted on 01/25/2005 6:35:58 AM PST by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: asil567
And why are we really there? OIL!!

Both Canada and Venezuela have oil. Why send troops halfway around the world for oil when it's right next door or just across the Gulf of Mexico? An armada of bureaucrats could disarm Canada's joke of a military in about three hundredths of a millisecond. Venezuela is just a short boat ride south. If it's just about oil, perhaps someone could explain why Canada and Venezuela both still have lots of it.

10 posted on 01/25/2005 6:36:41 AM PST by rickmichaels ("We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way." - Toby Keith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: asil567
"The whole reason they went to Iraq was WMD. There were none there, and they knew it. So then they link Al-Queda w/ Hussein, when that is completely false."

WMD's ?
USA Today
Fox News
Washington Post
San Diego Union Tribune


Al Qaeda Ties? Notice the airliner (Sept 11, 2001), and train cars, (Madrid 3/11/04), in the Salman Pac terrorist training facility outside Baghdad in this 2000 satellite photo. Click the image to get high resolution.

Al Qaeda Training Site Near Bagdad, Click for high resolution detailed image, 220K

11 posted on 01/25/2005 6:36:57 AM PST by DocRock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: asil567
It's the usual shallow drivel which the left spouts: "Greed! Halliburton! Devil! Oil!" The tone is not one of moral-outrage, for moral-liberals cannot really be morally-outraged over anything, but one of jealousy and envy. Someone else is getting the billion dollar contracts and not them. Someone else is being helped, and not them. Someone else is leading America, and not them.

"No blood for oil!" is their big chant. Yet, oil makes its way into all areas of the world's economy, from fertilizers to pharmaceuticals to transportation. Hence to allow some tin horn dictator to take over a fourth of the world's oil supply and to set his own price for it would have resulted in massive starvation in Africa, for instance.

12 posted on 01/25/2005 6:37:30 AM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MisterKnowItAll

Nice link. Welcome to FR.


13 posted on 01/25/2005 6:37:53 AM PST by Bahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: asil567
"And why are we really there? OIL!!!"

NOT. If we only wanted the OIL, we would have helped ourselves after the first Gulf War. At that time, Iraq was literally at our feet and not another country could/would have stopped our going for the oil.

Furthermore, there was NO deception involved with our invasion of Iraq. 'You are either with us or you are against us.' The President handed this statement out with very clear and straightforward sincerity on more than one occasion, not the least of which was his first and very dramatic State of the Union address. The nations, notably Iraq, who harbored/harbor terrorist murderers were/are on notice. Bush is not in a position to ignore what were unprovoked attacks on the sovereign territory of the United States of America and the MURDER of 3000 UNARMED civilians. Why? If you recall in the inaugural oath, .....'preserve protect defend...' that part??? ...taken by ALL incoming Presidents. Unfortunately, not taken seriously by ALL.
14 posted on 01/25/2005 6:38:02 AM PST by SMARTY ("Stay together, pay the soldiers and forget everything else." Lucius Septimus Severus to his sons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: asil567

Show your friend these statements by dems that preceded the Bush Admin.:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002



Then let your friend read this:

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 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 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 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,

SEC. 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--

(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, 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 2 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 War Powers 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.


15 posted on 01/25/2005 6:38:07 AM PST by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: asil567
You aren't going to change your friend's mind, but you can easily expose his cluelessness.

Ask your friend a series of non-debatable closed questions.
For example, you might say "so since you know so much, can you tell me a little about the history of al Qaeda? What does "al Qaeda" translate to in English? What links did the 9-11 commission report say AQ had with Iraq? Who is Ramzi Yousef? What is Wahibbism? Who was Abu Abbas? Where is Salman Pak? etc., etc."

Make sure you have your facts together b/c your friend won't. Then slam him with his own ignorance: "If you can't answer these basic questions, it doesn't seem like you're intellectually equipped for this conversation."
16 posted on 01/25/2005 6:38:28 AM PST by Rocky Mountain High
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: asil567

aquire a better class of friend-'cuz this one ain't worth your time...


17 posted on 01/25/2005 6:39:12 AM PST by snuffy smiff (Jean Fraud Kerry-the Botox BoatWarrior,"oh no, aground again and huge riceberg approaching")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: asil567

Ask them this: What's our oil doing under all their sand?


18 posted on 01/25/2005 6:39:21 AM PST by CBart95
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: asil567
Sometimes you can't defend stupidity, arrogance and abuse of power. However, while much of what your friend has stated is factual the major premise is false. Neither President Bush nor Vice President Cheney are lining their pockets on the lives of either the American military or innocent Iraqi/Afghani civilians.

Going into Iraq was a major blunder but at least it guarantees that the hawks won't get a shot at Iran, nor will Israel be given the wink to destroy the Iranian nuclear program. (Should that event evolve, however, then President Bush can be assured of immediate impeachment; in other words, enough swagger is enough.)

19 posted on 01/25/2005 6:39:36 AM PST by harrowup (Just naturally perfect and humble of course)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: asil567

Ask them who owns Kuwait's oil. When they say its the Kuwaities, then tell them that in order for their theory to be correct, the US should own Kuwait's oil.


20 posted on 01/25/2005 6:39:56 AM PST by KC_Conspirator (This space outsourced to India)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson