Live from Baghdad, Democrats think we can trust Saddam but not Bush:

Baghdad Jim

It wouldn't matter if they made their comments in D.C., Europe, or Baghdad. This administration wants no criticism and to do so, you are not being patriotic.

Saddam Hussein and Bush do have one thing in common- they were both not elected to office.

agreed m1011. I distaste the way this administration paints anyone with questions as being unpatriotic. Simply wrong and untrue. I heard Mario Cuomo on CNN this afternoon, and he has alot of questions going unanswered at the moment.

I would think most reasonable people would understand that it is terribly bad form - unpatriotic even - for members of Congress to call the President a liar while visiting a nation that is our sworn enemy and a direct threat to our national security.

[quote]Originally posted by puckman1:
agreed m1011. I distaste the way this administration paints anyone with questions as being unpatriotic. Simply wrong and untrue. I heard Mario Cuomo on CNN this afternoon, and he has alot of questions going unanswered at the moment.

---

1. McDermott didn't "ask questions." In an act I personally distaste, McD called Bush a liar while visiting enemy terrirory, and while saying that Saddam Hussein was trustworthy. Big difference.

2. Mario Cuomo has questions? Oh, dear. If a failed Governor/knee-jerk liberal has concerns, I guess we do need to rethink everything.

orignally posted by william 1815 [quote]

---

maybe we do need to rethink everything [quote]

---

.
Maybe we do! For one thing, we need to think about if we can afford the estimated $9 Billion dollars a month the war in Iraq would cost. This is a pretty high pricetag for a country who is already been plunged back into deficits, in less than two years mind you, and in an economy that is stuck in neutral gear, while absolutely nothing is being done about it, and there is no prospect of any Presidential leadership in trying to do something about it!

[quote]Originally posted by puckman1:
orignally posted by william 1815 .
if we can afford the estimated $9 Billion dollars a month the war in Iraq would cost

---

Maybe Ari Fleischer has it right for once: "The cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it on themselves, is substantially less than that"

If someone dares question dumbya on his upcoming war you are "attacking" him or are unpatriotic.
Bush sees things so black and white, either you are 'fur em or again em. There is no middle ground and no need to question him less you be labled unpatriotic.

"Focus on war"
Karl Rove

`From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.'
Andrew Card

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
I would think most reasonable people would understand that it is terribly bad form - unpatriotic even - for members of Congress to call the President a liar while visiting a nation that is our sworn enemy and a direct threat to our national security.

---

They said the president was misleading the American people, although "liar" really would not have been too strong of a word. It's not bad form to call the president a liar if he is, indeed, a liar. Dubya and his cronies have repeatedly said, among other things, that there is a direct connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and that this is a continuation of the war on terrorism, rather than a diversion from it. These are lies, and they know it.

Good reference:
Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda Are Not Allies

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: conor500 ]

[quote]Originally posted by puckman1:
orignally posted by william 1815 .

---

Obviously you took my quote just slightly out of context.

That second point is, given the "evidence" presented thus far, a lie.

To "trust" either W or Saddam would be foolish. The Democrats in Baghdad are seeking to get the Iraqis to accept effective inspections -- which destroyed more weaponry than the Gulf War did -- to save bloodshed on all sides.

And last I looked, FREE SPEECH for Americans is allowed, whether they're officials or civilians. Of course, W is on record as wishing he was a dictator.

Even the Washington Times notes Dubya's trouble with the truth:

"The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was 'six months away' from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist."

Agency disavows report on Iraq arms

Funny, every time I cite the Times, I'm hit with "It's right-wing, blah-blah-blah." Good to know that suddenly it's credible.

That's the point. The WashTimes is a CONSERVATIVE paper, and even they recognize that Dubya can't be trusted on this issue.

I just wish Mr. Bush would admit to why he wants to attack Iraq - because they dissed his Daddy. It, of course, is not a valid reason to go to war, but it does explain his actions to date.

More importantly, I wish someone in the administration or the Congress would just drop this rhetoric on how bad Iraq and Saddam are, and admit that it is our job to clean up a mess we made. We do not need to go into Iraq because of some imminent threat that is different from the threats posed by Al Queda operatives in Iran, Pakistan or this country, or even by Saddam's supposed weapons of mass destruction. The reality is the US created Saddam when we needed him to fight Iran and Frankenstein's monster got loose. It is our job, hopefully with the help of the UN, to get rid of him because we are responsible for his being there. To admit this would require an acknowledgement of our own short-sited foreign policy during the Cold War and afterwards, but would be far more honest than the current attempts to find a cause for war.

you are very correct sir. It is true that the whole Iraq mess is something created (mostly) by the United States. as a recent report made evidently clear about the Iraqi potential to use biological weapons. The bacterial and viral samples were sent to Iraq from the United States Government (via the CDC) while Iraq was at war with Iran (when relations were horrible between Iran and the USA)

Is the connection clear? We are attacking Iraq for having biological agents that we gave them.

The "official" statement was that they were sent over for "medical research" but we all know that the govt would try to avoid saying "these are sent over to be used against the forces of the Ayotollah". "medical research" sounds so much nicer. don't you think?

I say this as a proud republican who is NOT a jingoist and not a warhawk. It is not unpatriotic (that is ... it IS patriotic) to ask critical questions about motivations for sending our armed forces, our fellow citizens, into war to be killed. (that's right kiddies. People really do die in wars)

I find it disturbing that yet another president who himself dodged military commitment/duty during Vietnam is now so eager to send other people's children/parents/siblings into war.

You better believe that we need to ask the hard questions of whether it's worth it and not simply march like lemmings to the drunbeat of El Presidente.

The reasons, as opposed to pretexts, that the U.S. is so intent on starting another war on Iraq really don't have much to do with Saddam Hussein at all. Foremost, an attack on Iraq would be to show the Arabs once and for all who is boss in the region. Second, it would improve the position of the U.S. with regard to control of the region's oil supply. Third, it is obvious by now that the members of the Bush junta believe that continuation of war and bellicosity is the key to Republican electoral victories in November. Fourth, it would humble the U.N., a long-time goal of the American hard right: by refusing to take "yes" for an answer on inspections, Bush is forcing the U.N. Security Council to choose between subservience (becoming a rubber-stamp for his administration's bellicosity) & irrelevance (being rendered completely powerless to influence world affairs).

[quote]Originally posted by conor500:
That's the point. The WashTimes is a CONSERVATIVE paper, and even they recognize that Dubya can't be trusted on this issue.

---

The Times is now officially a credible conservative newspaper. I can post things from there safe in the knowledge that no one will say, "That's the Times, it's not reliable," because we have now officially established the Times' reliability. Wonderful.

But I think you're overplaying your hand. I doubt seriously the Times is saying "Bush can't be trusted" on the war issue. I just love that you guys think Saddam is no threat.

If we created this whole Saddam problem, we have an even greater moral responsibility to get rid of it. But as I've said before, alliances shift, friends become enemies, blah-blah-blah. Sorry that foreign affairs don't follow some sort of clean, linear narrative.

Why, it's Dr. Kissinger! I thought you always thought the "clean narrative" was the naked self-interest of the U.S. power elite, Doc?


White House on Iraq: We don't need no stinkin' proof! (A. Huffington)

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:


The Times is now officially a credible conservative newspaper. I can post things from there safe in the knowledge that no one will say, "That's the Times, it's not reliable," because we have now officially established the Times' reliability. Wonderful.

But I think you're overplaying your hand. I doubt seriously the Times is saying "Bush can't be trusted" on the war issue. I just love that you guys think Saddam is no threat.

---

The Washington Times is a loony paper, published by the Rev. Sun Young Moon, no less, but that doesn't mean that it's always wrong.

Bush blurted out last week that "they tried to get my dad." I guess Rove et. al. didn't practice his keeping this bit quiet.

The U.S. is the largest client for oil from this "enemy" nation--it's on the "axis of evil" but we're not too indignant or disgusted to claim that damned black gold; Europe and Canada are distant second and thirds. The mania for Iraq's oil reserves is also driving this.

Oh well--as a Republican mother of two teenage sons today wrote in the newspaper of record, New York Times, "When this resolution comes up for vote, each senator and representative must answer this question: 'In which branch of the military is your son or daughter planning to enlist?' If it is important to send average Americans into battle, then it is important to send your own sons and daughters as well." Hilary's all for it, but Chelsea's off at Oxford, lucubrating just like her dad....

Goldberg on Stupid Anti-War Tricks:

National Review

Beinart on Stupid Oil Tricks:

The New Republic

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:


The Washington Times is a loony paper, published by the Rev. Sun Young Moon, no less, but that doesn't mean that it's always wrong.

Bush blurted out last week that "they tried to get my dad." I guess Rove et. al. didn't practice his keeping this bit quiet.

The U.S. is the largest client for oil from this "enemy" nation--it's on the "axis of evil" but we're not too indignant or disgusted to claim that damned black gold; Europe and Canada are distant second and thirds. The mania for Iraq's oil reserves is also driving this.

Oh well--as a Republican mother of two teenage sons today wrote in the newspaper of record, New York Times, "When this resolution comes up for vote, each senator and representative must answer this question: 'In which branch of the military is your son or daughter planning to enlist?' If it is important to send average Americans into battle, then it is important to send your own sons and daughters as well." Hilary's all for it, but Chelsea's off at Oxford, lucubrating just like her dad....

---

What do I care what some dingbat mom in California with nothing better to do than write love letters to the NY Times thinks?

And I don't know who's record you're referring to. I think it's biased, racist, homophobic, heterocentrist, imperialistic, conformist, narrow-minded, closed-minded, classist and, my favorite, bourgeois, to assume that everybody follows the same newspaper. You should try diversity!

So all these people who want weapons inspections -if these inspections take place, people's husbands or wives, sons or daughters, mothers and fathers, nieces and nephews, cousins and cousins, friends and neighbors will have to go to Iraq and do these inspections. Would you send YOUR family over to do this? Have YOU ever conducted weapons inspections? Then how can you so flippantly suggest others should go to Iraq for such a mission? For shame . . .

Removed bitter personal attack.

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

As a constituent of Rep. McDermott, let me say that I'm thrilled he's raising these questions and that he doesn't feel he must keep his opinions to himself in an election year. I watched him this evening on Northwest Cable Network, and he explained that reporters asked him these questions, and he answered. He wasn't trying to piss everyone off, but if your asked a question by an American reporter, why not answer, if you don't have anything to hide? He also asked everyone who complained to explain to him and the American people exactly where and when you can express your opinion on important policy issues.

As far as if this'll hurt his re-election chances, it doesn't look like it.

[quote] So all these people who want weapons inspections -if these inspections take place, people's husbands or wives, sons or daughters, mothers and fathers, nieces and nephews, cousins and cousins, friends and neighbors will have to go to Iraq and do these inspections. Would you send YOUR family over to do this? Have YOU ever conducted weapons inspections? Then how can you so flippantly suggest others should go to Iraq for such a mission? For shame . . .

---

Assuming that my family, friends, etc., had the expertise for the job, I'd be fine asking them to inspect. More comfortable than sending them to fight in a useless war.

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: AriSea ]

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
I just love that you guys think Saddam is no threat.

---

Once again, who exactly said this? Of course Saddam Hussein is a threat, but no more so than the leaders of a dozen other countries, and he's not any more or less of a threat than he has been for years. So "why now?" is a valid question.

All I was pointing out is that Bush & Co. is making up reasons to attack Iraq, or at the very least relying on inaccurate and incomplete information.

[quote]Originally posted by conor500:


Once again, who exactly said this? Of course Saddam Hussein is a threat, but no more so than the leaders of a dozen other countries, and he's not any more or less of a threat than he has been for years. So "why now?" is a valid question.

All I was pointing out is that Bush & Co. is making up reasons to attack Iraq, or at the very least relying on inaccurate and incomplete information.

---

"Why now" is a very valid question.
I think that Sept/Oct is a great time to "market" a war, this according to Chief of Staff Andrew Card.

"Focus on war"
Karl Rove

An even more valid question may be "Are we going to continue to supply our leaders with weapons and bodies to expend cleaning up messes that we probably helped create, without asking more serious questions about how we might better prevent, or at least not contribute to the problem in the first place?"

But I suppose that's a bit much for a sound bite.

The fact remains for now that there is a mess and it needs to be cleaned up. I don't think that it can be done appropriately by the current administration nor the one likely to replace it unless average people start directing hard questions to their leaders.

If these democrats in Iraq achieve that I say "more power to them."

I can't personally recall reading much that they have said that suggests their willing to look any deeper into the situation than the immediate dangers whether to Iraqis or our soldiers and citizens. That's a start but not enough.

Short term solutions could prove counterproductive in the long run.

william,

In response to my post concerning the promulgation of microbial agents, you respond by saying Ïf we started it, we have a greater MORAL RESPONSIBILITY (emphasis mine) to get rid of it.

Do you really believe that it was "moral responsibility" that had us send to Iraq anthrax spores? and do you really believe that it is "moral responsibility" that is trying to whip this nation into a war that so many people (international and intranational) oppose so strongly?

Come on! Your address says DC. so you are in the loop as I was for so many years. You can not be that politically naive. I'll give you more credit than that.

secondly re:The Times. as a korean, let me say that the Rev. Sung-Myung Moon is a loony bird (a self proclaimed "second coming of Christ") with an agenda all his own.

finally I would actually find the opinion of a "dingbat mom in california" (read "opinion of the american people") more important than you seem to think. The opinions of the american public should be given credence as the important engine in driving public policy. more so than what the policy wonks in either Brookings, Hoover, Heritage or the hill and white house believe.

speaking of the "dingbat" mom - polls show overwhelming support for a war with Iraq, UNTIL you get into specifics on lives lost, cost, etc. The more costly, lengthy and bloody the war is (and apparently the Iraqis are preparing for an entirely different type of warefare, urban-based, than they did in 1990-1991, one that is likely to be far harder than our last few rolls to victory) the more likely the American people are to oppose it. Add to that the possibility of sky-rocketing oil prices and you have a recipe for disaster on the scale of the Vietnam war.

Has the administration really thought this through, or are they so ready to kick butt that they are not fully analyzing the facts? Given that the administration is led by an intellectual lightweight, who has never been in combat (and didn't even fulfill his obligation to defend the skies of Alabama from the Viet Cong), I'd have to guess the latter.

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: CPT_Doom ]

Im beginning to suspect that after the election is over all this will start to slow down.

I firmly believe that Bush and or his Administration are dealing with tunnel vision when it comes to the possible war with Iraq. Its all we are hearing and its all we are seeing, nothing else.

War is all they want the voters to think about. This inept group has presided over some of the worst times in recent history.

The economy is tanking, the markets are in a shambles, bin Laden and al-Qaeda are still alive and kicking, unemployment is up, confidence is down, and the GOP knows it loses if the focus is on domestic issues.

This is part of Rove's master plan.

[quote]Originally posted by CPT_Doom:
Has the administration really thought this through, or are they so ready to kick butt that they are not fully analyzing the facts? Given that the administration is led by an intellectual lightweight, who has never been in combat (and didn't even fulfill his obligation to defend the skies of Alabama from the Viet Cong), I'd have to guess the latter.

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: CPT_Doom ]

---

So let me get this straight: What you're suggesting is that people might DIE in a war? Wow. I don't know if anybody has thought of that.

[quote]Originally posted by ung:
william,

In response to my post concerning the promulgation of microbial agents, you respond by saying Ïf we started it, we have a greater MORAL RESPONSIBILITY (emphasis mine) to get rid of it.

Do you really believe that it was "moral responsibility" that had us send to Iraq anthrax spores? and do you really believe that it is "moral responsibility" that is trying to whip this nation into a war that so many people (international and intranational) oppose so strongly?

---

1. No. That's why I didn't say that.
2. Do I believe it is "moral responsibility" that is making the Bush Administration do what you perceive them to be doing? I really can't answer that because I don't agree with your premise that Bush is trying to "whip this nation into a war." I'm not even sure how one would go about whipping a nation into anything. Do you mean "whip up a war"? "Whip up war frenzy"? Whatever.

About the CA mom - she's not only a dingbat but a liar, too. She's a Democrat just as sure as I'm typing this. People who say things like "As a Republican, I'm outraged that President Bush wants to kill innocent children" are always Democrats. Besides, claiming to be a Republican who disagrees with a Republican=Surefire way to get published in the NYTimes. Even dingbat moms from the Left Coast know that. But who cares? She's not voting Republican, so screw her.

Well, since you know this mother, her backgrounds and intentions...wait, when did you become psychic, William?

BTW, is it true that McDermott is 1) a veteran and 2) has a child currently enlisted? That's more than can be said for most of the Chicken Hawks.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
... is it true that McDermott is 1) a veteran and 2) has a child currently enlisted?

---

http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/biography.html

>>
Jim's Biography
Jim McDermott was born in Chicago on December 28, 1936. He was the first member of his family to attend college and went on to finish medical school. After completing his medical residency and military service, he made his first run for public office in 1970
....
Rep. McDermott is married and has two adult children.
<<

http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/biography_2.html

>>
Military Service

U.S. Navy Medical Corps, Lieutenant Commander, Chief Psychiatrist, Long Beach Naval Station, California, 1968-70.
<<

Offspring in service? Dunno.

Military people lose their minds and go on shooting rampages, too. Does that make mass murder more acceptable? Wasn't Tim McVeigh ex-military? Who are we to criticize him? He obviously had our nation's best interests at heart. Veterans, despite their admirable service to our wonderful nation, do nutty things all the time.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Military people lose their minds and go on shooting rampages, too. Does that make mass murder more acceptable? Wasn't Tim McVeigh ex-military? Who are we to criticize him? He obviously had our nation's best interests at heart. Veterans, despite their admirable service to our wonderful nation, do nutty things all the time.

---

Your buddy Ann Coulter seems to hold Tim McVeigh in pretty high esteem.

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:


Your buddy Ann Coulter seems to hold Tim McVeigh in pretty high esteem.

---

Why do you say that? Because she used his name? I think what she said is that she DISLIKES him because he didn't bomb the NYTimes. That means she would not hold him in high esteem.

Once again, we've taken a real debate and turned it into a pathetic petty bitchfest over semantics and sarcastic comebacks. Awesome.

William, I actually do appreciate your opinions - without you and a couple others these threads would probably just be a bunch of us bleedin' hearts agreeing with each other - I just wish you'd share them more often. Instead of going on about "whip up a frenzy" and all that.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:



Why do you say that? Because she used his name? I think what she said is that she DISLIKES him because he didn't bomb the NYTimes. That means she would not hold him in high esteem.

---

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times
Building."
Ann Coulter

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
Ann Coulter

---

I bet a lot of people regret that he killed all those people. Not Annie, of course.

William,

with all due respect. when you say things like "she's not voting republican. so screw her"
My reaction is to cringe. That is not the type of image that I want to project as a member of the republican party. I certainly hope that was a knee jerk reaction and not your true sentiment. I think the majority of us, voting republicans, would have problems with that statement.

and as a sidebar, please don't presume to get into a semantics battle with me. I assure you that I will hold my own.

hoya saxa

Caught Se, Byrd on Donahue last night. Wow, he is not mincing words about the Bush Administration one bit! He said and I tend to agree with him on this that the Bush Administration is on a power trip at the moment over this Iraq situation, and that the Iraq resolution that the Senate appears to be passing or in favor of passing would be nothing more than a "blank check", and an open ended resolution. Furthermore he is way pissed off about trying to be silenced over his views of this debacle. Yes he is an old man, but Senator Byrd knows a little something about politics and the Constitution. Go gettem Byrd!!!

[quote]Originally posted by ung:
William,

and as a sidebar, please don't presume to get into a semantics battle with me. I assure you that I will hold my own.

hoya saxa

---

What do you mean you'll hold your own? You'll hold your own semantics battle? Your own sidebar? What are you trying to say here?

Sen. Byrd was the only one to vote against a resolution to move the Iraq issue to the floor. It passed 95-1.

I'm actually a little unclear about what the bill actually IS. Look for yourself if you want...

Lawmakers Begin Push to Give Bush Authority on Iraq

[quote] I'm actually a little unclear about what the bill actually IS. Look for yourself if you want...

---

The full text is printed in the New York Times as:

[quote] Authorizing the use of the United States Armed Forces pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council seeking to enforce the destruction and dismantlement of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missiles program or pursuant to the United States right of individual or collective self-defense if the Security Council fails to act.

Whereas under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), which effected a formal cease-fire following the Persian Gulf War, Iraq agreed to destroy or dismantle, under international supervision, its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs (hereafter in this joint resolution referred to as Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction program"), as well as its program to develop or acquire ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers (hereafter in this joint resolution referred to as Iraq's "prohibited ballistic missile program"), and undertook unconditionally not to develop any such weapons thereafter.

Whereas on numerous occasions since 1991, the United Nations Security Council has reaffirmed Resolution 687, most recently in Resolution 1284, which established a new weapons inspection regime to ensure Iraqi compliance with its obligations under Resolution 687;

Whereas on numerous occasions since 1991, the United States and the United Nations Security Council have condemned Iraq's failure to fulfill its obligations under Resolution 687 to destroy or dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program; Whereas Iraq under Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in its war with Iran in the 1980s and against the Kurdish population in northern Iraq in 1988; Whereas since 1990, the United States has considered Iraq to be a state sponsor of terrorism; Whereas Iraq's failure to comply with its international obligations to destroy or dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program, its record of using weapons of mass destruction, its record of using force against neighboring states, and its support for international terrorism require a strong diplomatic, and if necessary, military response by the international community, led by the United States:

Now, therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002."

Section 2. Authorization for the Use of United States Armed Forces.

(a) Authorization for the Use of Force. - The President, subject to subsection (, is authorized to use United States Armed Forces as he determines to be necessary and appropriate -

(1) to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, and other resolutions approved by the Council which govern Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, in order to secure the dismantlement or destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program; or (2) in the exercise of individual or collective self-defense, to defend the United States or allied nations against a grave threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program.

( Requirement for determination that use of force is necessary. - Before exercising the authority granted by subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that -

(1) the United States has attempted to seek, through the United Nations Security Council, adoption of a resolution after September 12, 2002 under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizing the action described in subsection (a)(1), and such resolution has been adopted; or (2) that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary pursuant to subsection (a)(2), notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution described in paragraph (1).

Section 3. Consultation and reports

(a) Consultation. - The President shall keep Congress fully and currently informed on matters relevant to this joint resolution.

( Initial Report. - (1) As soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days after exercising the authority under subsection 2(a), the President shall submit to Congress a report setting forth information - (A) about the degree to which other nations will assist the United States in the use of force in Iraq; ( regarding measures the United States is taking, or preparing to take, to protect key allies in the region from armed attack by Iraq; and © on planning to establish a secure environment in the immediate aftermath of the use of force (including estimated expenditures by the United States and allied nations), and, if necessary, prepare for the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq following the use of force.

(2) Classification of report. - The report required by paragraph (1) may be submitted in classified form. © Subsequent Reports. - Following transmittal of the report required by subsection (, the President shall submit a report to Congress every 60 days thereafter on the status of United States diplomatic, military and reconstruction operations with respect to Iraq.

Section 4. War Powers Resolution Requirements

(a) Specific statutory authorization- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that section 2 is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5( of the War Powers Resolution. ( Applicability of other requirements. - Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

---