Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
there is no way they would just go by what was in the press at that time without talking to him.
You are assuming that. I posted a link where the editor admitted that they did not get that "born in Kenya" from Obama. Why do you keep insisting even when the facts go against you?
a lolibertarian AND a birferAll we have are guesses .. the facts are way to thin regarding Obama's birth. The only reason he gets a pass on the citizenship rule and his records remain hidden is he's a democrat, thus above the law.So you don't believe what you write. Thanks for the clarification.Just baiting you dude."Half filled BC?"Kaz, the point is that at the time of Obama's birth, if he was not born in the USA, because his father was not American and his mother underage... guess what.. Obama would not be an American if he was not born in America. Someone else would if born today in similar circumstances. But at the time of Obama's birth young American women did not have the same rights that they do now. The laws changed after Obama was born. Thus the question.. was he or was he not born in the USA because it does matter. It's suspicious... very suspicious... that the only evidence we've seen is a copy of a copy of a half filled BC that is not consistent with other BCs ... and there are no photos. But we do have a news clipping that shows that his grandma called the papers to tell them of the birth and have it announced. Odd no, that a grandma who cared enough to call the papers to make the birth announce would not take a photo of mom and / or the baby at the hospital. Really the whole thing is odd.. we know his mom traveled to meet Obama's family while she was late pregnant and we don't have evidence of when she came back, whether it was before or after having Obama, whether the baby daddy came back to see the birth etc.. We know they had a camera as evidenced by his mom's porn photos. Course maybe he was afraid of being arrested as a bigamist.
What was not filled in?
And what about it was not like other birth certificates?
It is very dd Obama can't prove where he was born, isn't it?
No, I won't stop kazzing,
Finally, you admit it.
a lolibertarian AND a birferAll we have are guesses .. the facts are way to thin regarding Obama's birth. The only reason he gets a pass on the citizenship rule and his records remain hidden is he's a democrat, thus above the law.So you don't believe what you write. Thanks for the clarification.Just baiting you dude."Half filled BC?"
What was not filled in?
And what about it was not like other birth certificates?
It is very dd Obama can't prove where he was born, isn't it?
they did not make Iraq being behind 9/11 "one of the two reasons" to go to war. Try finding documentation
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.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
Your welcome.
Quit kazzing, I never said that. So you can repeat your kaz a thousand times, I still didn't say that. What I did say was a partner from the firm said almost nobody wrote their own bios. I didn't say they never asked Obama nor did I say they never spoke with him.(* = emphasis added)You're still kazzing -- he wasn't unknown.The fact you believe a publisher's process is to write bios of unknown people without talking to them shows the space between your ears. The echo has to be maddening
You're still functionally illiterate. You said none of the authors wrote their own biographies, they are a bunch of unknowns. And Obama may have had a few references, but he was still a nobody, there is no way they would just go by what was in the press at that time without talking to him.*
So seriously, you actually believe a publisher would do a bio without sitting down for five minutes and asking basic questions like where did you go to school? What degrees did you get? Where have you worked? Where have you volunteered? Where were you ... born?
It's unbelievable you would say something that if you are believed makes you look more stupid and naive than if you are just thought to be a partisan liar. You need to work on your story. Maybe then you can stop being such a clown
And now the guillotine drops to finish off kaz's idiocy. Here he pretends like the editor of that pamphlet couldn't possibly have known what to fill his bio with without Obama's personal input since Obama was, according to kaz, unknown. Well not only was Obama known, but there were many publications on him prior to that pamphlet, such as a brief mention in Time magazine and many newspapers around the country. The following two newspaper articles provide the blade on the instrument of death to kaz's latest bullshit, that being the publisher would have required input personally from Obama to know the details it included....
What's interesting about those two articles (and there were more) is that if one holds them up in comparison to the pamphlet kaz is crowing about, one can see that virtually every point in the pamphlet is mentioned between those two articles. In some cases, copied verbatim. There is the mention of Obama being born in Kenya, which Meriam Goderich, editor of that pamphlet, admits was a mistake on her part; and there is the mention of an upcoming book by Obama which would have been the reason for working with the publicist, but everything else appeared in print previously and would have been accessible to a publisher crafting a bio on an individual such as Obama, who had previously been in the news. Now while I'm not saying Meriam Goderich used those specific articles as the basis of her work, they clearly prove kaz is kazzing again when he pretends there were no other resources beyond Obama to put that bio together. Obviously, the info in the pamphlet already existed in print.
And of course, kaz makes this shit up as he goes along, all with the intent of deceiving the forum with worthless points he thinks will help him establish his original claim that Obama told his publisher he was born in Kenya; though in stark reality, kaz has never, in any of his vain attempts, even come close to proving this.
But being the completely brain-dead moron he is, he will not recognize how his idiocy has been squashed like a bug on the windshield of an 18 wheeler, barreling down I-95 at 80 MPH. Instead, for the forum's entertainment, he will continue to flop around like a fish on a pier, caught at the end of a fishing line. Gasping for oxygen and not comprehending its looming predicament.
I can repeat the main issue as many times as you can ignore it. You didn't just claim they didn't ask Obama, you said that was their process. How even today much less in the LexusNexis days would they do a bio on Tim Johnson, unknown author, without talking to them?
Your ignorance aside, your bullshit claim that Meriam Goderich had no other means of crafting that bio has been blown to smithereens.
Which renders you even more helpless than before in proving Obama saying he was born in Kenya ...
And just as I predicted, despite being able to prove your claim, you will continue floundering like a dying fish flopping on a pier.
My point was that under the law he would not be an American Citizen if he was not born in the USA. While he went to college he claimed to be a foreign student. Odd no?Kaz, the point is that at the time of Obama's birth, if he was not born in the USA, because his father was not American and his mother underage... guess what.. Obama would not be an American if he was not born in America. Someone else would if born today in similar circumstances. But at the time of Obama's birth young American women did not have the same rights that they do now. The laws changed after Obama was born. Thus the question.. was he or was he not born in the USA because it does matter. It's suspicious... very suspicious... that the only evidence we've seen is a copy of a copy of a half filled BC that is not consistent with other BCs ... and there are no photos. But we do have a news clipping that shows that his grandma called the papers to tell them of the birth and have it announced. Odd no, that a grandma who cared enough to call the papers to make the birth announce would not take a photo of mom and / or the baby at the hospital. Really the whole thing is odd.. we know his mom traveled to meet Obama's family while she was late pregnant and we don't have evidence of when she came back, whether it was before or after having Obama, whether the baby daddy came back to see the birth etc.. We know they had a camera as evidenced by his mom's porn photos. Course maybe he was afraid of being arrested as a bigamist.because libertarians who vote republican, like yourself, are the only ones who are still birfers?
I voted Republican once in the last six elections. You have been an idiot since birth.
Also, even in the quote you quoted, I think Obama was born in Hawaii. I also think even if he was born in Kenya he was born an American and is eligible to be President. This word, "birther," I do not think it means what you think it means. You realize you're on the internet, no? You can look up words you don't understand?
I understand what you are saying regarding immigration laws, but the Constitution doesn't say that. I don't see how it makes any difference where you are born. How does that change the intent of the framers to have someone loyal to their country by birth only be President? His being born to the same parents in different geological spots changes that? It makes you less loyal to be born to the same parents in our borders? Or in Obama's case, it wouldn't make him actually loyal in either case, but that was the voters who are idiots. I see no difference between his being born in Hawaii or Kenya regarding being natural born American, he is either way
As I said, I agree that us "law" says he would not be a citizen if born in Kenya, but I think that's a constitutional issue since the constitution says he must be natural born. I don't see how if you're born to at least one American parent you are not natural born American. I don't see how there is any material difference in being inside or outside our borders
They are two different authorizations for the use of force.
Your logic is to claim someone says something that they didn't say and then post a quote from someone else saying it, that has later admitted they didn't get it from the someone that you claimed said it to begin with......that's conservative logic at its best......bwahahaha!
Playtex, you have an IQ of at best 20 - you wouldn't know "logic" if you choked on an under-cooked syllogism.
Now calm down, I KNOW you never choke on jism, but syllogism has a different meaning. Ask your masters at the hate sites to explain it to you...
WTF? Both sections 1 and 2 were required to authorize military force; and section 2 included those who were involved in 9.11.they did not make Iraq being behind 9/11 "one of the two reasons" to go to war. Try finding documentation
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.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
Your welcome.
Read "1" then read "2." Do you know what 1 and 2 are? They are sequential. They are two different authorizations for the use of force. 2 is not a clarification of 1. Jesus, you people are un...freaking...believable
Right .... you lost an argument to a figment of your imagination.Quit kazzing, I never said that. So you can repeat your kaz a thousand times, I still didn't say that. What I did say was a partner from the firm said almost nobody wrote their own bios. I didn't say they never asked Obama nor did I say they never spoke with him.(* = emphasis added)You're still kazzing -- he wasn't unknown.
You're still functionally illiterate. You said none of the authors wrote their own biographies, they are a bunch of unknowns. And Obama may have had a few references, but he was still a nobody, there is no way they would just go by what was in the press at that time without talking to him.*
So seriously, you actually believe a publisher would do a bio without sitting down for five minutes and asking basic questions like where did you go to school? What degrees did you get? Where have you worked? Where have you volunteered? Where were you ... born?
It's unbelievable you would say something that if you are believed makes you look more stupid and naive than if you are just thought to be a partisan liar. You need to work on your story. Maybe then you can stop being such a clown
And now the guillotine drops to finish off kaz's idiocy. Here he pretends like the editor of that pamphlet couldn't possibly have known what to fill his bio with without Obama's personal input since Obama was, according to kaz, unknown. Well not only was Obama known, but there were many publications on him prior to that pamphlet, such as a brief mention in Time magazine and many newspapers around the country. The following two newspaper articles provide the blade on the instrument of death to kaz's latest bullshit, that being the publisher would have required input personally from Obama to know the details it included....
What's interesting about those two articles (and there were more) is that if one holds them up in comparison to the pamphlet kaz is crowing about, one can see that virtually every point in the pamphlet is mentioned between those two articles. In some cases, copied verbatim. There is the mention of Obama being born in Kenya, which Meriam Goderich, editor of that pamphlet, admits was a mistake on her part; and there is the mention of an upcoming book by Obama which would have been the reason for working with the publicist, but everything else appeared in print previously and would have been accessible to a publisher crafting a bio on an individual such as Obama, who had previously been in the news. Now while I'm not saying Meriam Goderich used those specific articles as the basis of her work, they clearly prove kaz is kazzing again when he pretends there were no other resources beyond Obama to put that bio together. Obviously, the info in the pamphlet already existed in print.
And of course, kaz makes this shit up as he goes along, all with the intent of deceiving the forum with worthless points he thinks will help him establish his original claim that Obama told his publisher he was born in Kenya; though in stark reality, kaz has never, in any of his vain attempts, even come close to proving this.
But being the completely brain-dead moron he is, he will not recognize how his idiocy has been squashed like a bug on the windshield of an 18 wheeler, barreling down I-95 at 80 MPH. Instead, for the forum's entertainment, he will continue to flop around like a fish on a pier, caught at the end of a fishing line. Gasping for oxygen and not comprehending its looming predicament.
I can repeat the main issue as many times as you can ignore it. You didn't just claim they didn't ask Obama, you said that was their process. How even today much less in the LexusNexis days would they do a bio on Tim Johnson, unknown author, without talking to them?
Your ignorance aside, your bullshit claim that Meriam Goderich had no other means of crafting that bio has been blown to smithereens.
Which renders you even more helpless than before in proving Obama saying he was born in Kenya ...
And just as I predicted, despite being able to prove your claim, you will continue floundering like a dying fish flopping on a pier.
You never said anything that you said. You never posted on the topic. In fact, you aren't even here, you probably don't exist
They are two different authorizations for the use of force.
Right. One being a threat to the worlds remaining superpower. And two, being involved in the 9-11 attacks. Either one could be used separate from the other.
WTF? Both sections 1 and 2 were required to authorize military force; and section 2 included those who were involved in 9.11.they did not make Iraq being behind 9/11 "one of the two reasons" to go to war. Try finding documentation
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.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
Your welcome.
Read "1" then read "2." Do you know what 1 and 2 are? They are sequential. They are two different authorizations for the use of force. 2 is not a clarification of 1. Jesus, you people are un...freaking...believable
Right .... you lost an argument to a figment of your imagination.Quit kazzing, I never said that. So you can repeat your kaz a thousand times, I still didn't say that. What I did say was a partner from the firm said almost nobody wrote their own bios. I didn't say they never asked Obama nor did I say they never spoke with him.(* = emphasis added)You're still functionally illiterate. You said none of the authors wrote their own biographies, they are a bunch of unknowns. And Obama may have had a few references, but he was still a nobody, there is no way they would just go by what was in the press at that time without talking to him.*
So seriously, you actually believe a publisher would do a bio without sitting down for five minutes and asking basic questions like where did you go to school? What degrees did you get? Where have you worked? Where have you volunteered? Where were you ... born?
It's unbelievable you would say something that if you are believed makes you look more stupid and naive than if you are just thought to be a partisan liar. You need to work on your story. Maybe then you can stop being such a clown
And now the guillotine drops to finish off kaz's idiocy. Here he pretends like the editor of that pamphlet couldn't possibly have known what to fill his bio with without Obama's personal input since Obama was, according to kaz, unknown. Well not only was Obama known, but there were many publications on him prior to that pamphlet, such as a brief mention in Time magazine and many newspapers around the country. The following two newspaper articles provide the blade on the instrument of death to kaz's latest bullshit, that being the publisher would have required input personally from Obama to know the details it included....
What's interesting about those two articles (and there were more) is that if one holds them up in comparison to the pamphlet kaz is crowing about, one can see that virtually every point in the pamphlet is mentioned between those two articles. In some cases, copied verbatim. There is the mention of Obama being born in Kenya, which Meriam Goderich, editor of that pamphlet, admits was a mistake on her part; and there is the mention of an upcoming book by Obama which would have been the reason for working with the publicist, but everything else appeared in print previously and would have been accessible to a publisher crafting a bio on an individual such as Obama, who had previously been in the news. Now while I'm not saying Meriam Goderich used those specific articles as the basis of her work, they clearly prove kaz is kazzing again when he pretends there were no other resources beyond Obama to put that bio together. Obviously, the info in the pamphlet already existed in print.
And of course, kaz makes this shit up as he goes along, all with the intent of deceiving the forum with worthless points he thinks will help him establish his original claim that Obama told his publisher he was born in Kenya; though in stark reality, kaz has never, in any of his vain attempts, even come close to proving this.
But being the completely brain-dead moron he is, he will not recognize how his idiocy has been squashed like a bug on the windshield of an 18 wheeler, barreling down I-95 at 80 MPH. Instead, for the forum's entertainment, he will continue to flop around like a fish on a pier, caught at the end of a fishing line. Gasping for oxygen and not comprehending its looming predicament.
I can repeat the main issue as many times as you can ignore it. You didn't just claim they didn't ask Obama, you said that was their process. How even today much less in the LexusNexis days would they do a bio on Tim Johnson, unknown author, without talking to them?
Your ignorance aside, your bullshit claim that Meriam Goderich had no other means of crafting that bio has been blown to smithereens.
Which renders you even more helpless than before in proving Obama saying he was born in Kenya ...
And just as I predicted, despite being able to prove your claim, you will continue floundering like a dying fish flopping on a pier.
You never said anything that you said. You never posted on the topic. In fact, you aren't even here, you probably don't exist
70% believed Iraq was connected to 9.11; and quite frankly, you don't impress me as someone who's smarter than 70%. 70% believed there was a connection because that was the impression planted by the Bush administration.WTF? Both sections 1 and 2 were required to authorize military force; and section 2 included those who were involved in 9.11.they did not make Iraq being behind 9/11 "one of the two reasons" to go to war. Try finding documentation
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.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
Your welcome.
Read "1" then read "2." Do you know what 1 and 2 are? They are sequential. They are two different authorizations for the use of force. 2 is not a clarification of 1. Jesus, you people are un...freaking...believable
Irrelevant to everything. You already said you are so incredibly stupid that you thought at the time Hussein was behind 9/11. You are, a clown. But who am I telling. That was hillarious, that you thought Saddam did 9/11. What a bozo
Liar. Only dumb asses believed Iraq was connected to 9/11.70% believed Iraq was connected to 9.11; and quite frankly, you don't impress me as someone who's smarter than 70%. 70% believed there was a connection because that was the impression planted by the Bush administration.WTF? Both sections 1 and 2 were required to authorize military force; and section 2 included those who were involved in 9.11.they did not make Iraq being behind 9/11 "one of the two reasons" to go to war. Try finding documentation
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.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
Your welcome.
Read "1" then read "2." Do you know what 1 and 2 are? They are sequential. They are two different authorizations for the use of force. 2 is not a clarification of 1. Jesus, you people are un...freaking...believable
Irrelevant to everything. You already said you are so incredibly stupid that you thought at the time Hussein was behind 9/11. You are, a clown. But who am I telling. That was hillarious, that you thought Saddam did 9/11. What a bozo
And no, not irrelevant. It's there in plain English ... the invasion of Iraq was consistent with "those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
70% believed Iraq was connected to 9.11; and quite frankly, you don't impress me as someone who's smarter than 70%. 70% believed there was a connection because that was the impression planted by the Bush administration.WTF? Both sections 1 and 2 were required to authorize military force; and section 2 included those who were involved in 9.11.they did not make Iraq being behind 9/11 "one of the two reasons" to go to war. Try finding documentation
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.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
Your welcome.
Read "1" then read "2." Do you know what 1 and 2 are? They are sequential. They are two different authorizations for the use of force. 2 is not a clarification of 1. Jesus, you people are un...freaking...believable
Irrelevant to everything. You already said you are so incredibly stupid that you thought at the time Hussein was behind 9/11. You are, a clown. But who am I telling. That was hillarious, that you thought Saddam did 9/11. What a bozo
And no, not irrelevant. It's there in plain English ... the invasion of Iraq was consistent with "those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
Liar. Only dumb asses believed Iraq was connected to 9/11.70% believed Iraq was connected to 9.11; and quite frankly, you don't impress me as someone who's smarter than 70%. 70% believed there was a connection because that was the impression planted by the Bush administration.WTF? Both sections 1 and 2 were required to authorize military force; and section 2 included those who were involved in 9.11.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.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
Your welcome.
Read "1" then read "2." Do you know what 1 and 2 are? They are sequential. They are two different authorizations for the use of force. 2 is not a clarification of 1. Jesus, you people are un...freaking...believable
Irrelevant to everything. You already said you are so incredibly stupid that you thought at the time Hussein was behind 9/11. You are, a clown. But who am I telling. That was hillarious, that you thought Saddam did 9/11. What a bozo
And no, not irrelevant. It's there in plain English ... the invasion of Iraq was consistent with "those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
