David Gale wrote:
"Ian St. John" wrote:
David Gale wrote:
"Abe" wrote:
I watched the debate and vote on C-SPAN when it was happening. I
think I'm interpreting the authorization correctly (of course, I'm
not above admitting I'm wrong if you can point me to an official
document that says the authorization was for something different
from what I'm saying).

Abe, please see my response to you elsewhere in this thread.

Or, at least, Section 3 of
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.114.ENR:

Still waiting for you to say something meaningful. I can see why you
just post references. You hope that people will get confused?

No, I hope that people will cross-check my facts, verifying them for
themselves.

It is not the facts that need correction, but your spin.

I do not expect (or want) people to take my opinion as
solid fact; I want them to consider the issue, examine the facts, and
make the decision for themselves.

We can agree on that much at least.

I strive to never simply declare
someone wrong; I try to find relevant documentary evidence which
backs up my claim. I do not, for instance, try to argue that
something like an authorization by the US congress for the US
president to use US forces is actually an authorization for the
president to beg the UN to actually enforce resolutions that had been
"in effect" for twelve years, or anything silly like that.

No. I wouldn't expect you to argue a red herring except in a fake 'example'
that assumes that talking to the U.N is somehow 'demeaning' or that you can
best help the U.N. by defying their rules and regulations to do your own
thing regardless. This is a lot like the wife abuser stating that 'she was
asking for it' A baseless self justification that does not deal with facts
but with egos.



Oh, that's right, you do that. Oops.
om)