Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 52

Thread: DEMS who Lied about WMDs'

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    5,398

    DEMS who Lied about WMDs'

    Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
    "This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."

    Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
    "It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."

    John Kerry > January 23, 2003
    "Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

    Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
    "He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."

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

    Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
    "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, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. 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."

    Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
    "Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

    Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

    Al Gore > September 23, 2002
    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

    Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
    "I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."

    Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
    "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

    Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
    "In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."

    Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002
    "(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."

    Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002
    "With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."

    Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003
    "Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

    John Kerry > January 31, 2003
    "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein
    is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
    you shouldn't vote for me."

    Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002
    "I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us."

    Al Gore > September 23, 2002
    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

    Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
    "The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

    Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
    "The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."

    Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
    "It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

    Al Gore > December 16, 1998
    "[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."

    Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
    "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

    Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
    "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

    Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
    "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."

    Al Gore > September 23, 2002
    "We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

    John Kerry > October 9, 2002
    "I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

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

    Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002
    "There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

    Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
    "[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."

    Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002
    Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."

    Jane Harman > August 27, 2002
    "I certainly think (Hussein's) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good."

    Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999
    "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

    Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002
    "[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam
    has chemical and biological weapons,
    and I expect that he is trying to develop
    a nuclear weapon. So at some point,
    we might have to act precipitously."

    Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
    "Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."

    Evan Bayh > August 4, 2002
    "I'm inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case
    needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others."

    Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
    "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

    Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003
    "I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."

    Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
    "We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability."

    Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003
    "The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."

    Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
    "First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."

    Senator Bob Graham > December 8, 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."

    John Kerry > February 23, 1998
    "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Elma
    Posts
    1,465
    now THIS is Bull****. Pure bull****.

    How do you think ALL of these people found out about Iraq having WMD's?

    Look no further than GEORGE W BUSH.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    5,398
    No erieman it is not.
    Truth hurts doesn't it?
    You guys can not have it both ways. Either they did or did not.
    Which is it? Seems to me they did because all these Dems have said so along with the world community.

    Look no further than GEORGE W BUSH.


    Check your date for when GWB became the Pres.
    How did he influence these people at this time?

    Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
    Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
    Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
    Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
    Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
    Al Gore > December 16, 1998
    Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
    Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999
    John Kerry > February 23, 1998

  4. #4
    Member WestSideJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Buffalo's West Side
    Posts
    1,578
    Ah, this is the funniest thing I've read all day!

    Now that Iraq is proving to be the disaster anyone with a brain always knew it would be, our Republican friends are trying to make it sound like it was the Democrats pushing for war.

    Say LHardy, when President Bush stood on the deck of the USS Lincoln in his flight suit, a "mission accomplished" banner waving in the breeze behind him, did you say "hey wait a minute, some of this glory belongs do the Democrats, too." I'm guessing you didn't.

    The voters of America put Republicans in charge of the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. That means Republicans deserve the credit for successes. It also means they deserve the blame for failures.

    Treachery made a monster out of me

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    5,398
    Now that Iraq is proving to be the disaster ....

    Just because you and the Dem party want it to be so;
    does not and will not, make it so.
    50 million people being free! A disater? Yah right!
    Pointing out facts seems to bother you.

    some of this glory belongs do the Democrats, too." I'm guessing you didn't.


    As an American I was proud of all. That does include Dems.
    The Dem party is the party out of power and trying to make everything the Bush admin does a failure. Trying to write history before it happens. Trying to rewrite their own statements of fact. They are failing and the country knows it. Why do you think the Dems are out of power.
    You guys assume that the American people are voting Republican because they are mind numb stupid robots of Rush Limbaugh and the like.
    I hope the Dems keep on doing what they are doing. Soon their party will vanish into obscurity and be no more relevant then a third party.

  6. #6
    Gold Member Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    shhhhhhh
    Posts
    6,141
    All of them people could have whatever they wanted, it was the President who had the troops sent in two years ago, two thousand soldiers dead, billions of dollars spent all in the name of "Freedom" and no evidence to support America's reason for going there. The quotes are worthless compared to what George W. Bush actually did.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    17,449
    Next expose':

    LHardy reveals Dems who knew Brownie was clueless, but didn't do anything about it.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    5,398
    it was the President who had the troops sent in two years ago

    The Pres. can only make a request and provide reasons for the request.
    It is the congress that has to send them to war and it is congress who stops it.

    ...and no evidence to support America's reason for going there.

    Did you see that last big terrorist attack on american soil? No?
    There's your evidence.

  9. #9
    Member WestSideJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Buffalo's West Side
    Posts
    1,578
    When President Bush stood on the deck of the USS Lincoln, in front of that Mission Accomplished banner, our Republican friends crowed about how it was proof that the Republican way was working. Now LHardy is asking us to believe that Republicans and Democrats shared in the glory of that day. Unreal.

    Seems like our Republican friends want to hog all the glory when things are going well, but when things aren't going so well suddenly they're able to find room in their hearts to share - the blame, that is - with Democrats.

    Here's the bottom line. Republicans control the White House, Senate and House of Representatives. It's not Democrats who invaded a nation based on false information. It's not Teddy Kennedy who increased federal spending over 33% since 2000. It's not Barbra Streisand who deliberately leaked classified information to the press to smear someone. It's not Hillary Clinton who gave us the two highest deficits in our nation's history, or a Medicaid "reform" that will actually cost us more money. It's not Michael Moore who broke his campaign promise to pay down our national debt (currently over 8 trillion dollars, by the way) by 100 billion dollars per year.

    So go ahead, squawk about the Democrats. Maybe if you squawk hard enough you can magically change history. I wouldn't bet on it, though.

    Treachery made a monster out of me

  10. #10
    Gold Member Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    shhhhhhh
    Posts
    6,141
    It's not Teddy Kennedy who increased federal spending over 33% since 2000. It's not Barbra Streisand who deliberately leaked classified information to the press to smear someone. It's not Hillary Clinton who gave us the two highest deficits in our nation's history, or a Medicaid "reform" that will actually cost us more money. It's not Michael Moore who broke his campaign promise to pay down our national debt (currently over 8 trillion dollars, by the way) by 100 billion dollars per year.
    Yep, and it wasn't Mickey Mouse who said there were WMD's overseas, have 2,000 American troops killed.

    Look at what happen on the Senate Floor last week... "rule 21" the US Senate went into closed-door session to discuss the possible manipulations of intellegence information prior to America going over there.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Amherst
    Posts
    6,426
    Originally posted by LHardy
    No erieman it is not.
    Truth hurts doesn't it?
    You guys can not have it both ways. Either they did or did not.
    Which is it? Seems to me they did because all these Dems have said so along with the world community.

    Look no further than GEORGE W BUSH.


    Check your date for when GWB became the Pres.
    How did he influence these people at this time?

    Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
    Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
    Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
    Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
    Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
    Al Gore > December 16, 1998
    Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
    Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999
    John Kerry > February 23, 1998
    You are so pathetic, it's almost breathtaking. Trying to spread the blame around for Iraq, now that Bush's popularity numbers are incredibly low.


    Imagine blaming all those Dems who actually decided to believe Bush about the need for war! Guess they were just too darned patriotic.

    Here's hoping they all learned their lessons.

  12. #12
    Member DelawareDistrict's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,799
    The statements made post 9/11/2001 were based on the "facts" presented by President Dubya.

    The statements made prior to 9/11/2001 were based on the fact that Sadam wasn't allowing the U.N. inspectors inside Iraq. Of course they indicated publically that they thought he had or was involved with WMD. Their goal was to get the inspectors into the country to VERIFY, not start a war based on lies.
    The path is clear
    Though no eyes can see
    The course laid down long before.
    And so with gods and men
    The sheep remain inside their pen,
    Though many times they've seen the way to leave.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    5,398
    War Powers Resolution of 1973

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Public Law 93-148
    93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
    November 7, 1973

    Joint Resolution

    Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.

    Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SHORT TITLE

    SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

    PURPOSE AND POLICY

    SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
    (b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

    (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


    CONSULTATION

    SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

    REPORTING

    SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
    (1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
    (2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
    (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
    (A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
    (B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
    (C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

    (b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad

    (c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

    CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

    SEC. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

    (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

    (c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

    CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL

    SEC. 6. (a) Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and such committee shall report one such joint resolution or bill, together with its recommendations, not later than twenty-four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

    (b) Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

    (c) Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out not later than fourteen calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). The joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

    (d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution or bill passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such resolution or bill not later than four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than the expiration of such sixty-day period.

    CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    SEC. 7. (a) Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and one such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

    (b) Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

    (c) Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

    (d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such concurrent resolution within six calendar days after the legislation is referred to the committee of conference.
    Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.

    INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION

    SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
    (1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
    (2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.

    (b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.

    (c) For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.

    (d) Nothing in this joint resolution--
    (1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or (2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

    SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

    SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint resolution and the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

    EFFECTIVE DATE

    SEC. 10. This joint resolution shall take effect on the date of its enactment.

    CARL ALBERT
    Speaker of the House of Representatives.

    JAMES O. EASTLAND
    President of the Senate pro tempore.

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,
    November 7, 1973.


    The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the resolution (H. J. Res 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections, to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, it was Resolved, That the said resolution pass, two-thirds of the House of Representatives agreeing to pass the same.

    Attest:
    W. PAT JENNINGS
    Clerk.

    I certify that this Joint Resolution originated in the House of Representatives.
    W. PAT JENNINGS
    Clerk.


    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
    November 7, 1973

    The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the joint resolution (H. J.
    Res. 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress
    and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his
    objections to the House of Representatives, in which it originate, it was
    Resolved, That the said joint resolution pass, two-thirds of the
    Senators present having voted in the affirmative.

    Attest:
    FRANCIS R. VALEO
    Secretary.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    5,398
    Their goal was to get the inspectors into the country to VERIFY, not start a war based on lies.


    If this was their goal they certianly stuck to that goal by giving the President the go ahead to confront Iraq.
    It took all of Congress to enact the war powers

  15. #15
    Member WestSideJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Buffalo's West Side
    Posts
    1,578
    Ok, so now that we've determined that the war in Iraq is the fault of the Democrats, how can we proceed with fixing the problem and getting the hell out?

    Treachery made a monster out of me

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •