Legal Status of Resolution?

I never see any discussion about House Joint Resolution 114 - the actual resolution giving these knuckleheads the authority to screw up Iraq.

If you read it, looks like we have "accomplished" what the law requires:

<<SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES
ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.>>

http://dc.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/hjres114.pdf

Plus, the only "whereas" that may still be applicable is:

<<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;>>

All other justifications are now moot or were just plain wrong, like all the WMD references. So, my question for any legal folks out there is: does Bush still have authorization to pull the crap he is now?

Plus, what happens to a public law that is based on fallacy? Is the Resolution moot since we were never really under a "continuing" threat by Iraq, and there was no need to defend our national security? How can Bush continue sending troops at this point?

I really do wish these points would come up at some point in our supposed "national debate."