AUMF - 2002 -, An Argument of Illegitimacy Options

[Max-1]

From all that I've been reading from across the board over the last year and a half, is that there is a consensus that without a doubt, the intelligence use to go to war in Iraq was wrong. Debatable is weather or not the said Intel was faked or just misunderstood. I'll save that debate for the experts.

What we do know, and our law makers know this also, is that the war in Iraq is out of hand. Sectarian violence or civil war, that's a tomato or a tomaatoe. That in no way will our law makers recall the troupes until the government steps up, or was it until their military steps up? Seems that the message from last months didn't carry over into April. Now it is a matter of the Iraqi government stepping up it's commitment of formation. But does either matter? In a way yes, America dismantled the government AND the military. All based on intelligence that was wrong.

So what do we do now? Short of throwing threats around of governing Iraq ourselves, Condi Rice is returning home from her surprise visit to Iraq where she recommended that the government of Iraq stop drifting in and out of attempting to form a government and just do it.

Somehow, our lawmakers could take a clue from this momentous time. Shameful as it may be, our lawmakers are hesitant to affect a policy change due to pride and prejudice. They attempt to support a president that uses the AUMF to justify illegalities that which he insists on committing. Be it wiretapping, or torture. He has referred to the AUMF as his calling card. Some Congress Wo/Men disagree. Some question. Some support it. And there are a majority that don't care.

Now, this war that the US is fighting can not be an actual declared war simply on merit. As Congress is required to declare war in a Nation, not an ideal. The Constitution, as written by Congress, requires that a declaration of war be mutually agreed on by Congress. So when the president talks about "The War in Iraq" it is a misleading statement as it implies that the US is in a state of declared war against Iraq. When the president discusses "The War on Terror" he is talking of a fight against an ideal. And now our president admits that the fight, this war, needs to be redefined as "The Long War".

The AUMF of Sept. 2001 was made to over throw the Taliban, and arrest the masterminds behind the attack on Sept. 11, 2001. That AUMF has been completed in the fact that Afghanistan has a new government and several hundred al-Qaeda have been arrested with the exception of Osama bi Laden.

This was a legal Authorization to Use Military Force.

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

107th CONGRESS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: 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'

.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b ) 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.

Approved September 18, 2001.

With the above taken into account, the President did not use the AUMF as drawn to invade Afghanistan to invade Iraq, although at one point, he did attempt to pass off the idea that Saddam Hussein did have direct ties to AL-Qaeda. His pretext to invade Iraq was based off of incorrect intelligence.

With multitudes of documents and admissions, it is the concession of experts world wide and becoming the concession of Americans, that the case for war was no case at all.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate).

H.J.Res.114

One Hundred Seventh Congress
of the
United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

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.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Again, I assert that the debate should be left to the experts however I also contend that with the amassing of facts and truths that point to evidence indicating that the president had foreknowledge of the possible inaccurate Intel, he forged ahead and asked for Congress and the American people to back him. Thus the Congress created the AUMF of 2002 against Iraq.

However, I also contend that Congress was given false facts and misleading information. Upon further examination of documents and testimony, it can be concluded that Congress originally formulated the AUMF of 2002 against Iraq faithfully and honestly based on the Intel and facts at the time. And that contrary to those facts and Intel, I contend that the AUMF of 2002 against Iraq be declared null and void and removed from it's ratification status of being an Authorized Use of Military Force against Iraq. What Congress authorized was to use a military strike force against a perceived enemy and it has turned out that this enemy was not the enemy Congress, the American people and the World thought that it was.

Yet the AUMF of 2002 against Iraq still is in force.

American people need to be asking their Congress why this is. Why and how can a Congress continue to enforce a Resolution that was made on good faith and has turned out to be illegitimate in it's basis through the uncovering of the false facts that which it was drawn up on?

[Max-1]

From all that I've been reading from across the board over the last year and a half, is that there is a consensus that without a doubt, the intelligence use to go to war in Iraq was wrong. Debatable is weather or not the said Intel was faked or just misunderstood. I'll save that debate for the experts.

What we do know, and our law makers know this also, is that the war in Iraq is out of hand. Sectarian violence or civil war, that's a tomato or a tomaatoe. That in no way will our law makers recall the troupes until the government steps up, or was it until their military steps up? Seems that the message from last months didn't carry over into April. Now it is a matter of the Iraqi government stepping up it's commitment of formation. But does either matter? In a way yes, America dismantled the government AND the military. All based on intelligence that was wrong.

So what do we do now? Short of throwing threats around of governing Iraq ourselves, Condi Rice is returning home from her surprise visit to Iraq where she recommended that the government of Iraq stop drifting in and out of attempting to form a government and just do it.

Somehow, our lawmakers could take a clue from this momentous time. Shameful as it may be, our lawmakers are hesitant to affect a policy change due to pride and prejudice. They attempt to support a president that uses the AUMF to justify illegalities that which he insists on committing. Be it wiretapping, or torture. He has referred to the AUMF as his calling card. Some Congress Wo/Men disagree. Some question. Some support it. And there are a majority that don't care.

Now, this war that the US is fighting can not be an actual declared war simply on merit. As Congress is required to declare war in a Nation, not an ideal. The Constitution, as written by Congress, requires that a declaration of war be mutually agreed on by Congress. So when the president talks about "The War in Iraq" it is a misleading statement as it implies that the US is in a state of declared war against Iraq. When the president discusses "The War on Terror" he is talking of a fight against an ideal. And now our president admits that the fight, this war, needs to be redefined as "The Long War".

The AUMF of Sept. 2001 was made to over throw the Taliban, and arrest the masterminds behind the attack on Sept. 11, 2001. That AUMF has been completed in the fact that Afghanistan has a new government and several hundred al-Qaeda have been arrested with the exception of Osama bi Laden.

This was a legal Authorization to Use Military Force. Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

With the above taken into account, the President did not use the AUMF as drawn to invade Afghanistan to invade Iraq, although at one point, he did attempt to pass off the idea that Saddam Hussein did have direct ties to AL-Qaeda. His pretext to invade Iraq was based off of incorrect intelligence.

With multitudes of documents and admissions, it is the concession of experts world wide and becoming the concession of Americans, that the case for war was no case at all.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate). H.J.Res.114

Again, I assert that the debate should be left to the experts however I also contend that with the amassing of facts and truths that point to evidence indicating that the president had foreknowledge of the possible inaccurate Intel, he forged ahead and asked for Congress and the American people to back him. Thus the Congress created the AUMF of 2002 against Iraq.

However, I also contend that Congress was given false facts and misleading information. Upon further examination of documents and testimony, it can be concluded that Congress originally formulated the AUMF of 2002 against Iraq faithfully and honestly based on the Intel and facts at the time. And that contrary to those facts and Intel, I contend that the AUMF of 2002 against Iraq be declared null and void and removed from it's ratification status of being an Authorized Use of Military Force against Iraq. What Congress authorized was to use a military strike force against a perceived enemy and it has turned out that this enemy was not the enemy Congress, the American people and the World thought that it was.

Yet the AUMF of 2002 against Iraq still is in force.

American people need to be asking their Congress why this is. Why and how can a Congress continue to enforce a Resolution that was made on good faith and has turned out to be illegitimate in it's basis through the uncovering of the false facts that which it was drawn up on?

And so I sent this off to my Senators and House Representative.
Along to John Conyers and Russ Feingold.




Here is what I have received.

Dear Mr. Dow,



Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about U.S. foreign policy in Iraq . I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.

In December, more than ten million Iraqi people showed up at 6,200 polling centers to vote in their nation's parliamentary elections. I went to Iraq to witness this milestone firsthand as an official election observer. This milestone is important for the United States and Iraq , giving new life to its own young democracy. As the Iraqi people take more responsibility for their government, we can begin to bring our own troops home. Through their participation, the Iraqi people not only chose their individual representatives, they also stood as one and said, clearly: "We choose democracy. And we are willing to risk our lives and our safety to get it."

This election was another clear benchmark for Iraqi sovereignty. And now, we must continue to demand more accountability and milestones from the Bush Administration. Just last November, I was one of 79 senators calling for 2006 to be "a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of forces from Iraq." My vote was part Senator John Warner's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

During my recent trip, I met with military men and women from our state and looked closely at what progress we have genuinely made thus far. Now that votes have been cast, the new 275-seat Council of Representatives must answer a very particular call. There will be many challenging days ahead. They must choose a president and a prime minister. And they must answer critical, delicate questions about the shape of their new government, and the impact of federalism and regionalism. They must bridge the tremendous chasms of deeply felt sectarian differences, and unite against an insidious insurgency that will not go away easily. That's why, we, too, have a lot of work still to do in Iraq . We must galvanize support in the neighborhood for this new Iraqi government. Humanitarian conditions need improvement; important aid must get to those in need.

However, the Bush Administration and Congress must first do a better job of helping train Iraqi troops and preparing them to take over their young nation's defense. Critical assets like the electricity grid and the oil pipelines need to be protected. And as the administration continues to hire contractors to work on our behalf, they both must be held accountable for performance and costs. Immediate progress on each of these issues requires accountability.

Please be assured that I will continue to hold the administration and Congress accountable in the hopes that we can create a spirit of partnership with the new Iraqi government. I will continue to closely follow our efforts in Iraq , and I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Finally, you may be interested in signing up for my weekly update for Washington state residents. Every Monday, I provide a brief outline about my work in the Senate and issues of importance to Washington state. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov . Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.


Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

For future correspondence with my office, please visit my website at
http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.html

Ms. Cantwell,
Accountability begins with personal responsibility.
I can not expect you to attempt to hold the Administration and Congress accountable, if you can not hold your self accountable and for failing to vote against the Patriot Act II, and failing to support Sen. Feingold's Censure Motion, not to mention you YES vote for this illegal war.

Dear friend,

Thank you for taking the time to e-mail me and let me know your
thoughts
on matters of concern to you. Hearing from Wisconsinites is my most
important source of information and one of the things I enjoy most
about
my job.

Constituents who have included their name, e-mail address, and
mailing
address in their message will receive a response from me addressing the
issues raised. If you did not include an e-mail and mailing address, I
encourage you to resend your original message with this information
(visit
http://feingold.senate.gov/contact.html to resubmit your contact
information and message). At this time, I am only able to respond to
e-mails that are sent individually, not to mass-generated e-mails.
However, the views expressed in any mass-generated e-mail that includes
a
Wisconsin address will be recorded.

If you have a time sensitive question, please feel free to contact
one
of my offices by calling one of the numbers listed below.

Thank you for writing me, I look forward to hearing from you on other
issues of importance to you.

Sincerely,

Russell D. Feingold
United States Senator

506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510-4904
PH) 202-224-5323
TDD) 202-224-1280

1600 ASPEN COMMONS
ROOM 100
MIDDLETON WI 53562-3506
PH) 608-828-1200
TDD) 608-828-1215

425 STATE STREET ROOM
225 LACROSSE WI 54601-3341
PH) 608-782-5585

517 E WISCONSIN AVE
#408
MILWAUKEE WI 53202-4504
PH) 414-276-7282

401 5TH STREET
ROOM 410
WAUSAU WI 54403
PH) 715-848-5660

1640 MAIN STREET
GREEN BAY WI 54302-7508
PH) 920-465-7508

Mr. Feingold,
I live in Washington state.
I filled out the reply form completely, making sure to include my address.



O.K. POAC People,
Feel free to cut and paste the quoted letter above. Send to your State Senators and House Representative.
I intend to do this DAILY until I get a real response.

I actually feel that this Resolution, AUMF of 2002, can be repealed based on the acknowledgment of the president himself, through his recent admission that he now understands that the Intel that was given to him was wrong. He even pleaded his innocence in not knowing that the evidence that he relied upon was forged Intel. He goes as far as saying, blatantly, that the entire world felt that Saddam was a threat, based off of what we knew and what the British confirmed.

O.K. I'm willing to bite Mr. President. However for me to swallow that bite of reality, we need to remedy the resolution that which these false facts gave rise to. And the easiest way to do this, as far as I can tell, is to hold Congress accountable, not the president. After all, it was Congress that bought the goods, and wrapped the Intel in a nice package, The AUMF Against Iraq of 2002.

So far, I'm still awaiting a reply from Patty Murry, Jim McDermott, and John Conyers.

I'll keep you informed.
Day one typically is auto response day.

Care to join me?

[Max-1]

Day two of E-Mailing
---------------------------

Results = one auto response from Russ feingold. Same message as above.

[sky of mind]

As to the legality of the war,
the congress was given the same information that was given to the UN,
and we all recall Mr. Powell there with the 8x10 color glossies with the circles and arrows
and a paragraph on the back of each one to be used as evidence for invasion of Iraq to Remove Saddam.


We all now know that what Powell presented to the UN was pure horse shit.
I have little doubt that Powell didn't know he was being used.

We all now know that when both Condi and Bushit used the phrase, "mushroom cloud"
it was a term used to frighten and manipulate not only the American people, but congress as well.


Speaking for myself, I never trusted the man or his people.
But when they said that I had to ask, "what if they're right?"
I knew it wasn't true, but damn, what if?


Bush and his men are guilty of deception upon the American people,
that I hazard a guess no historian could find a similer example anywhere in history.


The man and his men are guilty of high crimes and misdemeaners
as well as gross criminal neglect,
as well as exceptional war crimes,
as well as many, many national, state and local civil laws!


Eventually, Bushite is gonna fall.
Then over the course of the next 2 or 3 decades we'll find out little bits at a time,
just how badly the thing had been screwed.

[Max-1]

Sky,

Riddle me this:

Yet the AUMF of 2002 against Iraq still is in force.

American people need to be asking their Congress why this is. Why and how can a Congress continue to enforce a Resolution that was made on good faith and has turned out to be illegitimate in it's basis through the uncovering of the false facts that which it was drawn up on?

The way our Congress behaves, it is dangerously abject to leave the corrective course up to them.

They know not what they do.

That's like trying to wait for life to show itself on Mars.
AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN ANY TIME SOON.

It's not a legal resolution. Just because they say so?
Their say so is a say so drawn up on false facts.
That makes it an illegitimate resolution.

If our Congress insists on enforcing an illegitimate Resolution to wage war,
Then they too are leaving themselves subject to being charged with war crimes.

I'm not saying that they should be charged with war crimes, now.
I asking that the American People ask themselves and their Congress,
The necessity of enforcing an illegitimate AUMF against a Nation of peoples.

Only if and when Bush is held accountable as a criminal,
be it in our courts or the Hague, it will be too late to claim their innocence.

This post has been edited by Max-1: Wednesday, 5 April 2006, 2:10 am

[sky of mind]

I don't know why congress is acting the way they are and not reacting as if to a burgler in the house.
I can only imagine that the world of politics is a strange and unusual place in which normal logic gets twisted into political view.
I can only imagine that there are forces at work in congress that I have little or no idea about.
This is not to excuse any of it. But understanding sure would be nice.

I believe what yo have expressed here is in large party why the approval ratings for congress are so low,
historically low.

The American people today feel as disjointed and removed and unrepresented by the political system as they ever have!



Eventually things will change!
It took a while for the pendulum to slow then change directions.
It will take a little while for these American attitudes to filter into the halls of congress.

Like waiting for an echo.
The bigger the chasim, the longer you have to wait for it.

[Max-1]

Exactly Sky, I feel the same way.

And I will not allow myself to become distanced from my Senators and House Rep.

No matter how much a disarray they run their politics, I've made an oath to myself to not let them go unaccounted for, poor choices or not.

I think this is where America is at:
Apathy has taken hold. The vast majority of Americans could care less about raising enough hell to affect a change.
Atrophy is already setting in. Less than 50% of eligible voters actually vote.
And now we have a political party, the Republican party specifically, attempting to amputate the political system from the peoples interest, and declare themselves virtuous enough to claim politics as their own, thus disenfranchising themselves from the rest of America.

However,
With a shrinking voting population coupled with the growing lassitude toward politics from the American population, the Republicans do pose a real threat to actually hijacking American Democracy. On this path, I can see a real Theocratic Party evolving down the road, most probably known as The Religious Republicans.

Therefore I can not allow my State Senators and House Rep. do as they please. After all, their job is to represent the people, and do the work of the people as directed by the people's intentions and wishes.

I would encourage all POAC members to act and write, daily until you begin to be heard. One letter is not enough. And whatever the message may be, impeachment, censure, or what have you, the message needs to be, we are watching and hear our voice.

[Max-1]

Day three of E-Mailing
-----------------------------
Results = one auto response from Russ feingold. Same message as above.

[Max-1]

Day four of E-Mailing
---------------------------
Results = one auto response from Russ Feingold. Same message as above.


====================================================================

ATTN POAC:

Bush admits to the Intel to be erroneous in Thurs, 04/06/06

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060406/pl_nm/bush_iraq_dc

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20060406-3.html

Blue highlights are my comments.

They've got a perverted sense of justice. They believe in the use of violence to achieve their objectives. Their stated objectives, their stated goals are to spread their totalitarian view throughout the Middle East. That's what they want to do.referencing the TERRORISTS

...

Given that in mind, I'd like to share some of the lessons learned. One lesson is the nature of the enemy.oh, yea. a history lesson; Bush style.

Another lesson is, is that we must defeat the enemy overseas so we don't have to face them here again. And that requires a strategy that is offensive in mind: press the enemy, find the enemy, bring the enemy to justice, never relent, never give them quarter, understand you cannot negotiate with these people. You can't rationalize with these people, that you must stay on the hunt and bring them to justice. This is precisely what we're doing. so to defeat we must create?

One, obviously, immediate target is to dismantle al Qaeda. They hide in kind of the far reaches of the world. They plot and plan, however, from the far reaches of the world. They're good at communications. They're good at deception. They're good at propaganda. And they want to strike again. We have done a good job of dismantling the operating structure of al Qaeda -- Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Ramzi Binalshibh -- a series of these folks that have become the operating element of al Qaeda. Obviously Osama bin Laden and his sidekick Zawahiri is still at large. We understand that. But we're looking, and we're listening, and we're working with allies like President Musharraf of Pakistan, President Karzai of Afghanistan to bring this -- to bring the head of al Qaeda to justice. Osama who??? Osama where???

The second lesson learned is that unlike previous wars, these folks -- this kind of terrorist network that is ideologically bound needs safe haven. They need a place to hide. They need a symbiotic relationship with governments that will enable them to plot, plan and attack. the Allied coalition does too

So early on in the conflict, I not only vowed that we would use our fierce determination to protect this country by staying on the offense, but that we would deny safe haven to these terrorists. And so I said, if you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorist. And one thing that I think is really important for our citizens to understand is that when the President says something, he better mean what he says. In order to be effective, in order to maintain credibility, words have got to mean something. You just can't say things in the job I'm in and not mean what you say. Mr Bush, there were NO al Qaeda in Iraq until we went there. so explain how we must save a nation from a pestilence that we brought to them?

And I meant what I said. And so we said to the Taliban, get rid of the Taliban. They chose not to. I made my first decision to send our kids into harm's way and liberate Afghanistan. The decision to liberate Afghanistan was based first and foremost on the need to enforce the doctrine that I thought was necessary to protect the American people. The AUMF of 2001 (see above)

...

Another lesson -- this is an important lesson for the country. It's one that kind of sometimes can get obscured in the politics of Washington, but it's one that I'm confident when I tell you it's necessary for this country to adhere to. It's going to be necessary for me or whoever follows me. When we see a threat, we have got to take the threat seriously before it comes to hurt us. AND THIS IS TRUE FOR ALL AMERICANS NO MATTER WHERE THAT THREAT COMES FROM, INSIDE OR OUT.

...

But nevertheless, we never really felt anybody would invade us, did we? We never felt there would be another attack like Pearl Harbor on our lands. And yet September the 11th changed all that. More people died on September the 11th because of an attack by an enemy on our shore than died at Pearl Harbor. The biggest threat we face is when a terrorist network is able to acquire weapons even stronger than airplanes. If the terrorist network were ever to get weapons of mass destruction, one of their stated objectives, our country and the free world would face a serious threat. WHA WHAA WHAAA??? Sept 11th is a Pearl Harbor???

And now he pleads his case to the people ...

PAY ATTENTION ...

I saw a threat in Iraq. Not only did I see a threat in Iraq, the previous administration saw a threat in Iraq. Not only did the previous -- which, by the way, passed a resolution in the United States Congress that said we ought to have a regime change in Iraq. Not only did the previous administration see a threat in Iraq, members of both political parties in both chambers during my time as President saw a threat in Iraq. And the reason we saw threats is because the intelligence said that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.

But it wasn't just U.S. intelligence that said that, there was -- the worldwide intelligence network felt like he had weapons of mass destruction. After all, when I took the case to the United Nations Security Council, the Security Council voted 15 to nothing to say loud and clear: disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. That's not what the United States said alone. This is what France and Great Britain, China, Russia, and members of the Security Council said, because the world felt like Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and after 9/11 it was abundantly clear that a state sponsor of terror, which is what he had been declared by previous administrations, and the idea of weapons of mass destruction, and the fact that he was at least, at the very minimum, a stated enemy of the United States of America posed a serious threat for our country. His claim of preemptive first strike. to eliminate the enemy before they can act.

Thus the AUMF of 2002 was created.

...

AND NOW ...
THE ADMISSION ...

I also told you earlier that when America speaks, we got to mean what we said. I meant what we said when we embraced that resolution that said disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. Words mean something in this world if you're trying to protect the American people.

I fully understand that the intelligence was wrong, and I'm just as disappointed as everybody else is. But what wasn't wrong was Saddam Hussein had invaded a country. He had used weapons of mass destruction. He had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction. He was firing at our pilots. He was a state sponsor of terror. Removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing for world peace and the security of our country. WHA WHAA WHAAA??? The Intel was wrong???
And now the AUMF was drawn up on actions undertook by you father, during his Term in Office more than a decade ago???
Under that premis alone, what is to stop any nation from doing what Bush is doing based off of our use of nuclear weapons, twice against a soverine nation???

SERIOUSLY,
HE IS A MADMAN PLAYING A SHELL GAME WITH OUR EMOTIONAL BAGGAGE FROM 9/11 AND HIS DESIRES TO FIND HIS ACTIONS PURE, JUST AND CORRECT. RIGHT OR WRONG.

Tell your Senators and House Representative this fact. The president admits that the Intel was wrong. Even he knows that the AUMF of 2002 was based on faulty Intel. Tell Congress that the AUMF is based on false Intel and there fore is an illegitimate Resolution.

This post has been edited by Max-1: Friday, 7 April 2006, 3:10 am

[sky of mind]

SERIOUSLY,
HE IS A MADMAN PLAYING A SHELL GAME WITH OUR EMOTIONAL BAGGAGE FROM 9/11 AND HIS DESIRES TO FIND HIS ACTIONS PURE, JUST AND CORRECT. RIGHT OR WRONG.

This is exactly what he/they have been doing since ever since 9/12!

[Max-1]

Day five of E-Mailing
---------------------------
Results = one auto response from Russ Feingold. Same message as above.

Now they are out of their offices for TWO WEEKS. Spring Brake!

=====================================================

Friday, April 7, 2006

AUMF of 2002, An Argument of Illegitimacy
written by,
~ MAX-1 ~
Spencer Dow

"I want to thank the choir for coming, the youngsters for being here. I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace. We want there to be peace. We want people to live in peace all around the world. I mean, our vision for peace extends beyond America. We believe in peace in South Asia. We believe in peace in the Middle East. We're going to be steadfast toward a vision that rejects terror and killing, and honors peace and hope.

I also want the young to know that this country, we don't conquer people, we liberate people -- because we hold true to our values of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The security of our homeland, the need to make sure that America is safe and secure while we chase peace is my number one priority for the country."

June 18, 2002
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON HOMEOWNERSHIP
at the Department of Housing and Urban Development
http://www.hud.gov/news/speeches/presremarks.cfm

I began tracking the words and speeches of President George W. Bush in a far away place and inspired by the Orwellian wisdom, War is Peace, my journey into the documentation of the Iraq war, from the eyes of a common American citizen, has caused me to stand up and pay attention.

From all that I've been reading from sources across the board over the last year and a half, is that there is a consensus that without a doubt, the intelligence used to go to war in Iraq was wrong. Debatable is weather or not the said Intel was faked or just misunderstood. I'll save that debate for the experts to determine it's legality.

What we do know, and our law makers know this also, is that the war in Iraq is out of hand. Sectarian violence or civil war? That's a tomato or a tomaatoe. And in no way will our law makers recall our troupes until the Iraqi government steps up, or was it until their military steps up? Seems that the message from the last months didn't carry over into April. Now it is a matter of the Iraqi government stepping up it's commitment of formation. But does either matter? In a way yes, America dismantled the government of Iraq AND it's military. All based on intelligence that was wrong.

So what do we do now? Short of throwing threats around of governing Iraq ourselves, the Sec. of State, Condoleezza Rice, returned home from her surprise visit to Iraq where she recommended that the government of Iraq stop drifting in and out of attempting to form a government and just do it.

Somehow, our lawmakers could take a clue from this momentous event in time. Shameful as it may be, our lawmakers are hesitant to affect a policy change due to pride and prejudice. They attempt to support a president that uses the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) to justify illegalities that which he insists on committing. Be it wiretapping, or tourture. He has referred to the AUMF as his calling card; His Presidential Inherency during a time of war as granted to him through the AUMF by Congress and the War Powers Act. Some in Congress disagree with that assertion. Some question it. Some support it. And there are a majority that seem to not care.

Now, this war that the US is fighting can not be an actual declared war simply on merit alone as Congress is required to declare war on a Nation, not an ideal. The Constitution, as written by Congress, requires that a declaration of war be mutually agreed upon by both Houses of Congress. So when the president talks about "The War in Iraq" it is a misleading statement as it implies that the United States is in a state of declared war against Iraq.

When the president discusses "The War on Terror" he is talking of a fight against an ideal. And now, the president admits that the fight, this war, needs to be redefined as "The Long War" against an ideology, that for all intensive purposes, is a concept that is not new to mankind. A concept that has preceded the foundations of America itself. A concept that requires us to acknowledge the ever-present existence of terrorism.

The AUMF of Sept. 2001 was made to over throw the Taliban, and arrest the masterminds behind the attack on Sept. 11, 2001. That AUMF has been completed in the fact that Afghanistan has a new government and several hundred al-Qaeda have been arrested with the exception of Osama bi Laden.

This was a legal Authorization to Use Military Force. S. J. RES. 23

With the above information taken into account, the President did not use the AUMF, S. J. RES. 23 of Sept. 2001 as drawn up to invade Afghanistan, to also invade Iraq. Although at one point he did attempt to pass off the idea that Saddam Hussein did have direct ties to aL-Qaeda, his al-Qaeda claim of terrorism in the Middle East rested in Afghanistan. So to qualify the claims of terrorists resting in Iraq, more evidence would be needed, required by the UN, the US Congress, and the American people.

With multitudes of documents and admissions, it is the concession of experts world wide and becoming the concession of Americans, that the case for war was no case at all. His pretext to invade Iraq was based off of incorrect intelligence.

From the Downing Street Minutes, and the White House Memos, to the Laurence Wilkerson's interview or the Duelfer report. All arrows pointed to no WMD's in Iraq. And these were the early indications that "The wrong Intel" was used to make the case to go to war.

Colin Powell went before the UN Security Council and declared, Iraq has WMD's. He now talks of that day as being his worst carrier day of his life. The infamous 16 words spoken to the American people came from that report. The president pleaded his case with the American public during the State of the Union Address, January 29, 2002. And just days earlier, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate). H.J.Res.114 . Signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 16, 2002.

Again, I assert that the debate should be left to the experts as to the legalities of it all, however I contend that with the amassing of facts and truths that point to evidence indicating that the president had foreknowledge of the inaccurate Intel, he forged ahead and asked for Congress and the American people to back him. Thus the Congress created the AUMF of 2002 against Iraq.

The White House has contended that the information gathered was as accurate as possible; That the world consensus was that Saddam Hussein had WMD's in his possession. That too, is a separate debate that needs to be heard. However, revelations recently have brought forth a subtle admission from the president.

While giving a speech at Central Piedmont Community College in Charlotte, North Carolina, on April 6, 2006 :

Early in his speech, the president reminds us, his audience:

And one thing that I think is really important for our citizens to understand is that when the President says something, he better mean what he says. In order to be effective, in order to maintain credibility, words have got to mean something. You just can't say things in the job I'm in and not mean what you say.

The president once again begins to plead his case for invading Iraq:

I saw a threat in Iraq. Not only did I see a threat in Iraq, the previous administration saw a threat in Iraq. Not only did the previous -- which, by the way, passed a resolution in the United States Congress that said we ought to have a regime change in Iraq. Not only did the previous administration see a threat in Iraq, members of both political parties in both chambers during my time as President saw a threat in Iraq. And the reason we saw threats is because the intelligence said that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.

But it wasn't just U.S. intelligence that said that, there was -- the worldwide intelligence network felt like he had weapons of mass destruction. After all, when I took the case to the United Nations Security Council, the Security Council voted 15 to nothing to say loud and clear: disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. That's not what the United States said alone. This is what France and Great Britain, China, Russia, and members of the Security Council said, because the world felt like Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and after 9/11 it was abundantly clear that a state sponsor of terror, which is what he had been declared by previous administrations, and the idea of weapons of mass destruction, and the fact that he was at least, at the very minimum, a stated enemy of the United States of America posed a serious threat for our country.

Following up his plea; reasoning the invasion of Iraq, the President then once again made a plea of forgiveness and understanding:

I also told you earlier that when America speaks, we got to mean what we said. I meant what we said when we embraced that resolution that said disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. Words mean something in this world if you're trying to protect the American people.

I fully understand that the intelligence was wrong, and I'm just as disappointed as everybody else is. But what wasn't wrong was Saddam Hussein had invaded a country. He had used weapons of mass destruction. He had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction. He was firing at our pilots. He was a state sponsor of terror. Removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing for world peace and the security of our country.

The president says twice in his speech, that he is to be believed. If we are to believe him, as he asks that we do, he is asking that we believe his story. And if we are to believe his story, completely and in it's entirety, then we are also compelled to believe his words when he says that he too is sorry that the information used to sell the case to go to war to the UN, Congress and the American People as being wrong information.

So if we are to believe his words, then we are being asked by him, implicitly, to believe that information used to Authorize Military Force against a sovereign Nation was false and wrong. Thus, the AUMF was drawn on false pretexts and is an illegitimate Resolution to use military force.

However, I do contend that Congress was given false facts and misleading information. And where as upon further examination of documents and testimony, it can be concluded that Congress originally formulated the AUMF of 2002 against Iraq faithfully and honestly based on the Intel and facts given to them at the time. And that contrary to those facts and Intel, I contend that the AUMF of 2002 against Iraq be declared null and void and removed from it's ratification status of being an Authorized Use of Military Force against Iraq. What Congress authorized was to use a military strike force against a perceived enemy and it has turned out that this enemy was not the enemy Congress, the American people and the World thought that it was.

Yet the AUMF of 2002 against Iraq still is in force.

American people need to be asking their Congress why this is. Why and how can a Congress continue to enforce a Resolution that was made on good faith and has turned out to be illegitimate in it's basis through the uncovering of facts that points to information concluding that the case for war was a case built on wrong information?

Even by the president's admission.

Congress needs to distance themselves from their agreed upon Resolution. And the only way to do so is to dissolve it and repeal it accordingly. By failing to act, Congress's silence will be seen worldwide as complicity to an egregious occupation and invasion of a sovereign nation. Thus, by association, guilty of war crimes themselves.

Ask your Congress to repeal the AUMF of 2002.




Revised 04/07/06

[happymisanthropy]

But it wasn't just U.S. intelligence that said that, there was -- the worldwide intelligence network...

Damn! It was the black helicopters all along!

[Max-1]

A brief update on my letter writting campaine:

I also did submit this letter to my Senators and House Rep through Congress.org last 04/19/06,
And have recieved a response from each Office. Auto response

April 19, 2006


Spencer Dow
515 12th Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98102


Dear Spencer:

Thank you for your recent letter voicing your concerns
regarding the current situation in Iraq. I share many of the same
concerns and I worry about the future of that troubled nation. I am
encouraged by the fact that so many of my constituents are willing
to question the Bush Administration's policy. Some would have
you believe that to doing so now cheapens the brave and loyal
service that our nation's soldiers perform. However, I believe that
now more than ever is a time for questioning.

While I strongly support our troops, I have opposed the Iraq
war from the very beginning. I look forward to the day our
soldiers return safely home. The Bush Administration's decision
to take military action in Iraq was and still is baseless. Engaging
our armed forces in support of such a policy damages the image of
the United States and undermines our military's well-earned
integrity.

At the highest levels, the Iraq war has been conducted poorly
since its inception. The strength of the insurgency is still
underestimated. Diplomatic opportunities have been ignored.
Money that we should be using to adequately equip our soldiers
has instead been given to large corporations in no-bid contracts.
Despite the best efforts of our men and women on the ground, the
bitter fruits of this misguided policy are more evident every day.
Iraq is disintegrating into sectarian strife and the newly-formed
government is unable to keep the level of violence from escalating.

To ease current tensions, our government must send a clear
signal to the Iraqi people that American forces are not beginning a
permanent occupation of their country. To further this end, I am a
member of the Out of Iraq Caucus. I support Representative
Murtha's call for redeployment out of Iraq (H.J.Res. 73) as well as
all other similar measures, including Representative
Abercrombie's discharge petition (H.Res. 543). A timetable for
withdrawal would help ease the fears of Iraqis about our intentions
and would start to reestablish trust between our two peoples.

I do not propose abandoning Iraqis at this dark hour, but rather
that we recognize that our military presence is being manipulated
by the insurgency to promote chaos. As we reduce American troop
levels, the Administration and the State Department must work to
rebuild a real international coalition that will support the people of
Iraq. It is especially critical that we reach out to Iraq's neighbors
and prove to them how a stable Iraq would be beneficial for the
entire region.

More than anything, the war in Iraq is an example of the
misplaced priorities of the Bush Administration. If they were not
bogged down in this unnecessary war, our National Guard troops
would have been available to provide relief for Katrina victims.
But the impact of the war is not limited to the unavailability of our
soldiers. It goes much deeper. Every dollar spent in Iraq is a
dollar that could have been spent on health care or poverty relief or
tax reductions at home. The war reached its three year anniversary
on March 19, 2006 and to this point it has received over $260
billion in allocations.

To make matters worse, the President continues to ask for this
money in "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations" bills.
Although the amount requested can be calculated beforehand and
included in its budgetary proposals, the Administration refuses to
do so because that would publicly reveal the war's rapidly inflating
costs.

Although it also allocated funding for many other programs that
I support, I voted against the passage of the latest supplemental
appropriations bill (H.R. 4939) because of the huge amounts of
money set aside for Iraq operations. I do not believe the policy of
the Administration in Iraq merited another blank check from
Congress. Americans and their lawmakers must start to hold this
Administration accountable for its mistakes.

Thank you once again for contacting me. I will keep your
comments in mind as Congress deals with this issue in the months
to come.

Sincerely,
Jim McDermott
Member of Congress

Dear Mr. Dow:

Thank you for contacting me about the possibility of impeaching or
censuring President Bush or other members of his Administration. I
appreciate hearing from you.

As you know, Congress may remove the President, Vice President, and any
Civil Officer of the United States from office through the impeachment
process. According to the Constitution, the House of Representatives
may impeach an official on charges of "Treason, Bribery, or other High
Crimes and Misdemeanors" (Article II, Section 4) to remove the
individual from office. Only two sitting Presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill
Clinton, have ever been impeached. No sitting President has been
convicted and removed from office. Only one President – Andrew Jackson – has
ever been censured, or rebuked, by the Senate. President Jackson’s
censure was expunged from the Senate record three years later.

I share your concerns and frustrations with the Bush Administration.
I too have significant concerns about the Administration’s policies and
the rationale for many of their actions. I voted against invading Iraq
because the Bush Administration failed to address a viable exit
strategy or clearly define the mission’s objectives. I am deeply concerned
with the Administration efforts prior to the invasion, and their conduct
of the war since then. Additionally, I have grave concerns about the
recent admissions that the President authorized the National Security
Agency to spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant. The American people
deserve a full and open investigation into the Administration’s actions.

Oversight of the Administration is one of Congress’s vital roles.
Unfortunately, the Republican majorities in both the House of
Representatives and the Senate have conducted nearly no oversight, even routine, of
this Administration. In the careful balance of power, I believe that
Congress – as the legislative branch – has an obligation to conduct
oversight on any executive, regardless of party. Congress must ensure that no
abuse of power ever occurs, and that the American people continue to
benefit from the transparence of government.

Only through effective oversight can the House and the Senate determine
whether the Administration’s actions have been appropriate, and I am
deeply troubled by how few hearings have been held to examine these
questions. I believe that the Congress must hold the Administration
accountable for their actions and decisions.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If I can be of service in the
future, please be in touch.

Sincerely,


Patty Murray
United States Senator

And damned if I deleted Maria Can't-do-well's auto response.

And so,
Now with Monaday, 04/24/06, aproaching and Congress returning from their two week vacation, it's time for me to gear up again. In light of even more evidence toward the revieled lies, I'm gonna rework my letter.

I encourage everyone to get to typing, letter writting etc. to their Congres reps and House reps.

Who do they hear if nobody says booooo?



I'll update my letter and post here on Monday.

[MasterMind]

I cant wait!

[Max-1]

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/



Bush Now Says What He Wouldn't Say Before War: Iraq Had 'Nothing' To Do With 9/11

President Bush was in the midst of explaining how the attacks of 9/11 inspired his "freedom agenda" and the attacks on Iraq until a reporter, Ken Herman of Cox News, interrupted to ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11. "Nothing," Bush defiantly answered. Watch it.

To justify the war, Bush informed Congress on March 19, 2003 that acting against Iraq was consistent with "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 terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

As ThinkProgress has repeatedly documented, Vice President Cheney cited "evidence" cooked up by Douglas Feith and others to claim it was "pretty well confirmed" that Iraq had contacts with 9/11 hijackers.

More generally, in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, the administration encouraged the false impression that Saddam had a role in 9/11. Bush never stated then, as he does now, that Iraq had "nothing" to do with 9/11. Only after the Iraq war began did Bush candidly acknowledge that Iraq was not operationally linked to 9/11.

Dig It!

Full transcript:

BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. Except it's part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

===================================================================

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/08/21/b...to-do-with-911/



Bush says: "Iraq Had 'Nothing' To Do With 9/11″

By: John Amato on Monday, August 21st, 2006 at 12:30 PM - PDT



Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are not happy campers today that's for sure. He admits he was wrong about WMD's in Iraq and now this.

Video-WMP Video-QT

QUESTION: A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

BUSH: I square it because imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein, who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who had relations with Zarqawi.

You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived [in Iraq] and — you know, the stir-up-the-hornet's- nest theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned.

The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were …

QUESTION: What did Iraqi have to do with that?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. . . . .Except for it's part of — and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize,

I seem to remember Dick Cheny, Condi and Bush trying link Iraq to 9/11 way back when:

Russert: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack

Martini Republic: So, to sum up, we had to invade Iraq because Saddam didn't have any WMDs and didn't have any connection to 9/11. And his handlers reportedly cannot understand why his approval ratings remain in the toilet.



====================================================================



WHAT IS THIS FREEDOM AGENDA?

WHERE IS THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE APPROVAL OF THIS USE OF OUR TAX DOLLARS?

WHAT LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL/OVERSIGHT IS TAKING PLACE TO ENSURE THE LAWFUL USE OF OUR TAX DOLLARS?



This post has been edited by Max-1: Monday, 21 August 2006, 7:01 pm

[Max-1]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/14120

Rep. Maxine Waters' Letter to Colleagues

Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2006-09-08 “ I think we have to examine very carefully what Congress authorized the president to do in the context of a situation if we're faced with an all-out civil war and whether we have to come back to the Congress to get further indication of support.” – Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, August 3, 2006

September 6, 2006

Dear Democratic Colleague:

I invite you to cosponsor (waters.147), a sense of the House of Representatives resolution declaring that Public Law 107-243, which authorized the use of military force against Iraq in 2002, is outdated and that Congress should debate and vote on a new resolution to reflect the current situation in Iraq.

In October 2002, Congress passed H J Res 114, which became Public Law 107-243, citing Iraq’s possessing and continued interest in developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and its support for and harboring of terrorist organizations. However, in the aftermath of the war, it became clear that the Administration’s claims about Iraq’s weapons programs were untrue and there was no relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. Additional investigations revealed that the Bush Administration hyped the intelligence the United States had on Iraq in order to sell the American people and the Congress on going to war in Iraq.

With the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, Iraq, one of the holiest places for Shiite Muslims, on February 22, 2006, Iraq descended into a level of sectarian violence that can only be described as a civil war. Thousands of Iraqis have been murdered, often by gruesome methods. The United Nations estimates that more than 14,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq in the first half of 2006. Most political scientists define a civil war as a war between different sections or parties of the same country or nation in which casualties are in excess of 1,000. Clearly, the death toll in Iraq has far exceeded this level and Iraq is embroiled in a civil war.

With Iraq fighting a civil war and the lack of weapons of mass destruction or a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, the terms of Public Law 107-243 are no longer are applicable. Therefore, Congress should debate and vote on a new resolution authorizing a US military presence in Iraq.

If you would like to cosponsor H Res XX, please contact me or Michael Rose of my staff at 225-2201 or mike.rose@mail.house.gov.

Sincerely,

Maxine Waters
Member of Congress