IANAL, but this smells like an impeachable offense to me. I doubt it will happen though, since there aren't enough Democratic votes in Congress to get articles of impeachment through.
Thanks to The Left Coaster for the following:
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries 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.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
But on 9/17, Bush says that:
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.
The failure to find any imminent WMD threat has now negated Article 1 of the rationale Bush used above. Today he says he has no evidence that Saddam was involved in September 11(when on March 18 he says he did have such evidence), which then negates Article 2 of his legislatively-required justification for war as outlined under PL 107-243.
Comments (1)
You've got to get serious! Why are they assuming that the so-called "imminent threat" has to be caused by WMD's? As far as I know, the Pres and his advisors never said that Saddam would nuke/poison the U.S. I don't know the legal definition of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", but 2 or 3 Air force wings, 12 Infantry Divsions, 2 Armored Divisions, etc. Fit the bill for me.
The Administration followed all the rules of enforcing the UN's previous (4,5,6?) resolutions (read threats) against Iraq.
This is the typical political B.S. that keeps coming from liberals. They give the Pres. approval on defending/avenging/lashing out, then bitch and complain he did it! The hypocrisy is amazing...
P.S.-You're backing the wrong horse. The nag to bet on is Hillary Clinton.
Posted by Barry | September 19, 2003 12:47 PM