Did Bush VIOLATE the Iraq War Resolution?

Read it for yourself and give your conclusions:
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce <b>through the United Nations Security Council </b>all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action <b>by the Security Council </b>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) <b>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.</b>
(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.
.....

I don't see anything about "liberating the Iraqi people" in here. I see working through the Security Council and using force if Saddam is a threat and doesn't comply with UN resolutions.

Saddam did comply. The UN inspectors determined he wasn't a threat. Bush went to war because Saddam didn't follow his ultimatum and leave Iraq. Where is that in the resolution?

In my opinion, it doesn't matter who voted for or against the resolution: Bush violated it.

who wants us out of the UN. They hate the idea of us having to be a responsible member of the world community and want to dismantle the UN anyway.

I think the lack of UN support for this illegal war is the reason why - if they can discredit the UN, then they can say it doesn't matter if we follow the rules.

They'll try to keep spinning, and I hope they do, because the jury is out and more and more evidence clearly reveals an intent to mislead America into an illegal War with faked intelligence doctored by this Administration.

In fact, you can go futher and say the net effect of the IWR and the subsequest UN resolution as of March 1, 2003, was that for the first time since 1998, Iraq was open to inspectors, and missiles that were on the borderline of what was allowed were being destroyed. For any with concerns that Saddam could have WMD, these questions were being resolved.

Bush turned this accomplishment into a disaster when he invaded.

"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 . . ."

Anybody know the status of these reports? "Every 60 days" means there should be no fewer than 16 reports that have been submitted to Congress with all sorts of details. I wonder where those reports are? What's in them? Or have they even been submitted?

It was used as a political tool. Bush violated all the steps to be taken in the IWR. Its that simple.

with the INTEL. They gave him power to use force under specific conditions. He did not prove those conditions existed, he usurped power by invading without real cause.

Yes, he violated the IWR. He lied to get the IWR and then he lied that he had the right to invade.

Never understood why every DEM who voted for the thing hasn't been screaming about this since March of 03. The man violated clearly stated Congressional intent.

... for military action, despite their vacant claim that there was, or that the original 1991 resolution was still in place. The cease fire resolution after the Gulf War called on ALL parties to, well, cease fire. Res. 1441 specifically stopped short of calling for military action. That's what all the fuss about a second resolution was about, after all. Bush, in his own words, wanted to force other countries to "put their cards on the table" (or some other such jingoistic cowboy phrase). He vowed to put forward a 2nd resolution calling explicitly for the use of force, and of course, didn't (when he realized it wouldn't pass). The last lines of Res. 1441 state that the SC would "remain seized of the matter". It was the UNSC's call to make.

The Bush administration specifically defied Resolution 1441. As such, he broke U.S. Law. Article VI of the Consitution states that all treaties, charters, etc. the U.S. signs become U.S. Law (including the U.N. Charter).

... on violation of a U.N. Resolution, would probably be difficult to achieve (even with Dems in Congress).

I agree with you orig post, though. He violated his own IWR. He did not exhaust all options, and did not follow through with the U.N. process, as promised. More, I believe he made reference in the required letter to Congress, upon his initiation of the war, to defending against those who attacked us on 9-11. That was a bald-faced lie, in print, to Congress. I think it would be much easier to impeach based on that and the IWR.

Or, simply, lying to Congress. Much of the evidence presented to Congress specifically left out evidence disproving their assertions. A lie of omission is a lie nonetheless.

right?

"More, I believe he made reference in the required letter to Congress, upon his initiation of the war, to defending against those who attacked us on 9-11. That was a bald-faced lie, in print, to Congress."

"The Bush administration specifically defied Resolution 1441. As such, he broke U.S. Law. Article VI of the Consitution states that all treaties, charters, etc. the U.S. signs become U.S. Law (including the U.N. Charter)."

We gave Bush a noose...he put it on and hanged himself.

"Worse than Watergate." Bush never met the conditions of the IWR. Why this has been ignored for so long is a mystery, but the Repo's have invited a second look at the issue by blaming the Democrats for this Republican administration's failed policies.

We here at DU all know it, and have for quite some time.

The IWR gave him certain powers
IF and WHEN certain specific scenarios came to pass.
They DID NOT come to pass.
And all reliable evidence made it clear that they were NEVER going to.

He ignored all that,
claimed that the IWR said what it specifically DIDN'T say,
and launched an invasion which had been in the works for months.

How come we have to force feed them what should be their own defense? They should be shouting this along with we did not have the same intelligence as Bush. Jeesh! Good on you for this catch.

spending etc. justify action beyond this resolution?

And when he sent the determination to Congress saying that Iraq was a grave threat, he lied on that regard as well.

to finish their work in the amount of time the UN alloted to them in the resolution. So Bush violated the resolution as soon as he forced the UN Weapons Inspectors to leave. That's how determined he was to go to war. It didn't matter whether or not they ever found weapons. Bush was going to have his war no matter what.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4082365

I agree with your assessment. Thought everyone might want to reflect on the fact that it is now November 14, 2005, and Bush his neoconster buddies still have continued to fail to comply with another pertinent LAW.

We don't call them the lawless leaders of a rogue super-power without good reason.

"It IS Tribunal Time in the United States of America."


Peace.

OK, so he violated 1441 and then violated the IWR at least once!!

Just how much more rope do we need to hang these cretins?!?! Come on Dem leadership, he's on the ropes and staggering, keep hitting!!!

One of the reasons I posted this was because DU posters is one of the smartest groups I have ever encountered. If there is a hole in a theory or an opinion, some DUer will point it out even if it's not what we want to hear.

So far, everyone posting agrees that from the wording of the resolution Bush violated it.

So, Bottom Line, even if Bush did not mislead Congress (although we know he did), he did not follow the provisions of the IWR.

BUSH WAGED WAR WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF CONGRESS.

So, how do we get this message out to the general public?

And, as Gratuitous points out in post #4, what about those reports that Bush is supposed to be sending to Congress? Where are they? What do they say? Is he sending them? (doubtful). This probably does deserve a thread of it's own.