Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

merrily

(45,251 posts)
2. I googled for the full text and look where I found it first.
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 07:28 AM
Sep 2014

Gotta love DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2017065

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Hell, at the time, Biden claimed that it had not even authorized Dimson's invasion of Iraq because Dimson had not fulfilled all the conditions or some such. I even posted that on another board at the time; and a Republican lawyer, who hated Bush, but not as much as he hated Democrats, I guess, posted the full text of the resolution, without additional comment.

But, the AUMF against Iraq is not the only authorization to use military force of that fateful era.


Authorization for Use of Military Force may refer to:

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 authorizing the Persian Gulf War, also known as Operation Desert Storm: H.R.J. Res. 77

Authorization for Use of Military Force I, also known as "Public Law No: 107–40", authorizes the use of military force against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001

Authorization for Use of Military Force II, also known as "Iraq Resolution", "Iraq War Resolution" and "Public Law No: 107-243"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force

"What was the middle one, again?"

Full text of "the middle one" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Obama buys into John Yoo's stupid view Vattel Sep 2014 #1
Does Obama really buy into John Yoo's view? (Or Bybee's?) merrily Sep 2014 #3
He may not accept Yoo's views on detention and interrogation. But he agrees Vattel Sep 2014 #4
He cited the AUMF, not authority inherent in the Presidency. merrily Sep 2014 #5
Recently he has cited his inherent authority. Now he is also citing AUMF. Vattel Sep 2014 #6
Link? (Context and exact wording would be critical.) merrily Sep 2014 #7
He and his advisers are just throwing stuff against the wall to see what will stick. amandabeech Sep 2014 #17
I agree Vattel Sep 2014 #20
I googled for the full text and look where I found it first. merrily Sep 2014 #2
Still not sure how these apply to Syria.... grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #9
Are you trying to think like a politician? merrily Sep 2014 #12
Like a lawyer. grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #13
You mean, actual words with actual meanings? merrily Sep 2014 #14
Senator Obama in 2007: woo me with science Sep 2014 #8
Obviously, that Obama guy was a Fringe Leftist who hated America. Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #10
I am actually worried what'll happen to the Premies on this board come Jan. 2017 MisterP Sep 2014 #15
I'd really like to know where in the Constitution he sees the ability of the merrily Sep 2014 #11
Both the 2001 and 2003 AUMFs remain the law of the land tritsofme Sep 2014 #16
Could you be so kind as to send me the quote or section that authorizes it? grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #18
Interesting tritsofme Sep 2014 #19
So, if the action turns into a disaster, a Republican Congress could potentially lay the whole grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #21
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama Sees Iraq Resolutio...»Reply #2