can anyone find some backup on this?

[mittenlandgirl]

I asked this in another thread, "Within 48 hours after the attack on Iraq, President Bush informed Congress in writing that Iraq posed a serious and imminent threat to national security"

I've been looking and can't find where he used those words. I got a feeling this is being set up so they can knock it down on a technicality. I've seen this posted in alot of places but no reference to where it comes from.
I did find where he wrote something to congress, but it doesn't say this, could it be from something more official?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html

[blm]

1. In the IWR it was stipulated that Bush must send Congress a letter

within 48 hours to inform them that he determined Iraq was a serious threat to national security.

In the Biden-Lugar version of the IWR, Bush would have had to send that note the day he went to war.

[Pacifist Patriot]

2. So if he didn't send anything he would most definitely be in

violation of the statute, yes?

Does anyone know if the letter stipulated was actually sent and if it was, is it available anywhere for quoting?

[mittenlandgirl]

3. reposting

my link was broken but here it is again
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html

I think this might be the letter in question

[Pacifist Patriot]

6. Thank you. I'm including it as an attachment/exhibit

in my letter to my congressmen.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1821428&mesg_id=1821428&page=

[ET Awful]

4. By stating in that letter that he was acting pursuant to the

powers given him in the act, he must be stating that, as those are the only conditions under which he was permitted to order an invasion pursuant to the Act.

he doesn't have to use those exact words in his letter, merely by invoking the Act as justification, he has stated it.

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. I think these are the key statements...

On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

[blm]

8. This is EXACTLY why I always said it was foolish to blame the IWR when it

was BUSH ALONE who deserved the blame for the invasion. If the IWR had been adhered to, as an honest president would, there would have been no invasion BECAUSE of the IWR stipulations.

Too many on the left became so caught up in blaming the IWR that they enabled BushInc operatives to spin it against those who voted for it. The IWR was spun as a victory for Bush and one that supported him, when it should have been defined as a document that demanded Bush take the proper steps to avoid war and only use force if Bush, alone, DETERMINED force was necessary.

[mittenlandgirl]

12. but

you say "he doesn't have to use those exact words in his letter, merely by invoking the Act as justification, he has stated it"

The act also uses the words "continuing threat" not "serious and imminent threat" He uses the same wording from the act.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

This is the game they play, we can't fall into it. Remember Rather. I'm just saying be careful how things are stated.

[auburngrad82]

7. Or this one from March 25th

On October 16, 2002, I signed into law the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" (Public Law 107-243). After condemning Saddam Hussein's continued possession of chemical and biological weapons, obstruction of inspections, and brutal repression of the Iraqi people, the Congress affirmed, "Iraq poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security of the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030325-3.html

[Pacifist Patriot]

10. Why thank you. That will be attachment/exhibit #2

However I notice it is carefully worded to shift the responsibility to congress.

[auburngrad82]

9. Here's one from March 17, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

[Pacifist Patriot]

11. and another attachment. I'm going to need extra postage.

It'll be worth it.