In article ,
"David Gale" wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" wrote:
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:
When, exactly, did you know that?

The important thing is, when should Bush have known it?

What, becoming President makes one omniscient? Wow, that's a great perk.
Remind me to sign up for the job.

Don't we want our president to be a level or two above "deaf and dumb"?


The authorization your congressman passed doesn't specify.

It specifies doing what's necessary (not just Bush's whim) to defend the
US
(not for any reason Bush wants). There's nothing in there about
invading
because Saddam was a mean man.

Now, when I look at the phrase "as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate", I notice that it says that the president (Bush) determines
what is necessary, and what isn't.

Doesn't it go on to say "to meet the threat"?


Of course, I could be wrong, and it
could mean, "as Lloyd Parker will determine was necessary a year and a
half
from now".

If you authorized me to strike against a "continuing threat", the way
your
congressman did, it does.

Not when there was no continuing threat.

The authorization declared that there was a continuing threat.

Suppose Saddam had fully complied (to Bush's satisfaction) the next day.
The resolution would have still read the same. So would an invasion still
be authorized, in your view?


They
could've written that the President was authorized to use force "in the
event that a threat becomes imminent", but they didn't. They said that
there *is* a threat, and that it needed to be dealt with.