HR114 was conditional, it wasn't a blank check.Count one: Apparently 'the decider' got the Congress to agree with him.
The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.
The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."
There was no threat to the US and not complying with 1441 mandates (see below), is not enforcement of that document.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.
First off, do you know what the UNSC means when they end a resolution with the words "Decides to remain seized of the matter"? Because that refers to what they said right after they decided Iraq was in material breach of 687...Count two:
Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by Iraqi troops during the 19901991 invasion and occupation It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."
Since the UN resolution 1441 clearly stated that Iraq was in material breach, the ceasefire agreed to in Resolution 687 was no longer in effect.
I paraphrase, Hans Blix report that he still had not verified the destruction of WMD's as declared by the Iraqis but he was hopeful that he would do so. Someday, maybe!
...which means that Iraq must be declared in material breach of 1441 for further action to be taken. And just who's responsibility is to determine that? Not Bush. He's the leader of a member state. And 1441 clearly states...Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council;
...so when Bush unilaterally decided for the UNSC, that's not support of the resolution; that's not submitting a report of any violations; and that's not allowing the UNSC to review such a report.Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates
and
Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations
and
Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
When they say they will remain siezed on the matter, they are saying that THEY WILL DECIDE, not the decider, what coarse of action will be taken next.
As far as Hans Blix, his last report to the UNSC, he specifically stated that when he said he hadn't found any evidence of WMD's, that should not be construed as Iraq in breach of not providing information as to their locations. Bottom line is there was no reason to rush to war. No reason why we couldn't of let UN inspectors stay the coarse and finish their mission. No reason to spend a trillion dollars of US tax payer money in someone else's god-damn country with no direct benefit to average American's.
When you look at the cost of what this nation paid out and what it got in return, any person considering himself an American patriot, would be very, very pissed off!
Obama's not my hero. I withdrew support 18 months after his inaugaration when it became apparent he was going to continue the neocon foreign policy agenda. And Bush did not get congressional approval for war, as stated above, congressional approval was conditional and Bush never provided those conditions.I also found this on the War Powers Act:The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Regan in 1981 by sending military to El Salvador, by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for the attack on Libyan forces, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action, and again when troops entered Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden.
I stand corrected on my mention of the War powers act. Bush got congressional approval for Iraq, whereas your hero has ignored it TWICE in 3 years. Now we know who "the decider" really is don't we.
And lastly, although those presidents did, they didn't have the Constitutional authority to disregard an act of legislation by Congress. They have veto power when it comes to signing legislation, but when Congress makes a law, it is the executive branches job to enforce it. Only SCOTUS can shoot down congressional legislation.