Reply #38: starting with your first question....

[mike_c]

Section 2(1) and Sec. 2(2) express the Congress's SUPPORT for "the efforts by the president." They place no requirements on him for future actions whatsoever. None. Nada. That's your first two queries-- Bush was not required to do anything further.

Section 3(a) is utter boilerplate. It gives the President authority to use military force AT HIS SOLE DISCRETION. So yes, Bush did that. There is no "violation" of the IWR there.

Section 3(b). Yep-- on March 18 he sent congress a brief letter. Here is its text:

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

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

Section 3(c)(1) and Sec. 3(c)(2)-- again, these place no requirements on Bush, so the question of whether he did them makes no sense. These sections explicitly state that the IWR constitutes congressional authorization to use military force under the War Powers Resolution-- the abdication of congressional responsibility to declare war. This gave Bush sole authority as military commander in chief under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution (note that the SCOTUS has never ruled on the constitutionality of this).

I believe that addresses all of your questions. Your last statement, about reporting to congress, is dealt with in Sec. 4(b), which allows a "single consolidated report" BUT DOES NOT SPECIFY WHEN IT IS DUE. Presumably, whomever is president at the end of the war against Iraq will be called upon to submit that report. Someday. In any event, Bush did not "violate" the IWR-- the IWR was a blank freaking check and a get-out-of-jail-free-card all rolled into one.