White House Will Fight For War Powers

Bush Will Stand His Ground If Democrats Try To Revoke 2002 Authorization

(CBS/AP)  The White House said Friday it would oppose any attempt by Senate Democrats to revoke the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the war in Iraq and to restrict U.S. troops to a limited mission as they prepared to withdraw.

The Bush administration argued that changes in the resolution were unnecessary even though it was drafted in the days when Saddam Hussein was in power and there was an assumption — later proved false — that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. The White House said Democrats were in a state of confusion about Iraq.

"There's a lot of ... shifting sands in the Democrats' position right now," deputy White House press secretary Tony Fratto said. "It's hard to say exactly what their position is."

Earlier in the day, the same White House spokesperson had said that any effort by Congress to revoke the president's authority to wage war in Iraq was hypothetical, reports CBS News correspondent Mark Knoller, but as the day progressed, so did the message.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said of the White House, "They can spin all they want, but the fact is that President Bush is ignoring a bipartisan majority of Congress, his own military commanders and the American public in escalating the war.

"The American people have demanded a change of course in Iraq and Democrats are committed to holding President Bush accountable," Manley said.

Democrats want a narrower mission, reports CBS White House correspondent Jim Axelrod: denying terrorists a safe haven in Iraq and training Iraqi troops to secure their country. The Democrats say that would require fewer U.S. troops, and drawdown of troops could start early next year.

Democrats such as Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the Iraq Study Group, say this is the best chance for their party to oppose the war but avoid divisive arguments on supporting the troops.

"There are very formidable challenges in keeping the Democrats together on this," he said. "Anything that suggests you're undercutting the troops will not come close to getting majority."

But Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republican minority leader, dismissed the Democrats' effort as a "Goldilocks solution, one that is hot enough for the radical left wing but cool enough for the party leaders who claim that they are for the troops." He said he would press for a Senate vote on a resolution committing to funding the troops.

The White House spokesman said Congress does have the power of the purse to control U.S. troops in Iraq, Knoller reports, but the president has all the constitutional authority he needs as commander in chief to determine strategy.

Axelrod reports that the president's aides argue that Congress authorized the president to send troops to Iraq in 2002 to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions. Since those resolutions are still in force, they say no new authorization is needed.

The wording of the Democrats' measure remains unsettled. One version would restrict American troops in Iraq to fighting the al Qaeda terrorist network, training Iraqi Army and police forces, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.

Reid intends to present the proposal to fellow Democrats next week, and he is expected to try to add the measure to anti-terrorism legislation. Officials who described the strategy spoke only on condition of anonymity, noting that rank-and-file senators had not yet been briefed on the details.

"These kinds of efforts have consequences," Fratto said at the White House on Friday. He said that pulling troops out of Baghdad would result in chaos.

Republicans recently thwarted two Democratic attempts to pass a nonbinding measure through the Senate that was critical of Mr. Bush's decision to deploy an additional 21,500 combat troops.

After failing on his second attempt last Saturday, Reid said he would turn his attention to passing binding legislation.

Any attempt to limit President Bush's powers as commander in chief probably would face strong opposition from Republican allies of the administration in the Senate. Additionally, it could also face a veto threat.

The issue marks a quickening of the challenge Democrats are mounting to Mr. Bush's war policies following November elections in which voters swept Republicans from power in both the House and Senate.

The emerging Senate plan differs markedly from an approach favored by critics of the war in the House of Representatives, where a nonbinding measure passed last week.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she expects the next challenge to the president's war policies to come in the form of legislation requiring the Defense Department to adhere to strict training and readiness standards for troops ticketed for the war zone.

Rep. John Murtha, the leading Democratic advocate of that approach, has said it would effectively deny Mr. Bush the ability to proceed with the troop buildup that has been partially implemented since he announced it in January.

Some Senate Democrats have been privately critical of that approach, saying it would have virtually no chance of passing and could easily backfire politically in the face of Republican arguments that it would deny reinforcements to troops already in the war zone.

Several Senate Democrats have called in recent days for revoking the original authorization that Bush sought and won from Congress in the months before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 that toppled Saddam Hussein.

[clemenhagen1]

Ego, pride, and partisan blinders have fueled a false argument in the "surge" debate and thus served to shield us from the truth. I consider myself patriotic but I will not question anyones loyalty; this "patriotic pissing match" has blocked logical debate. According to Cheney a troop withdrawal would signal a cowardly retreat and validate al Qaeda's strategy. I could not disagree more. We are not fighting "al Qaeda" in Iraq; the "enemy" consists of multiple factions who hate each other as much as they despise U.S. occupation forces. Is the argument that a Sunni controlled Iraq would become an al Qaeda haven really logical? Were Iraqi Sunnis supporters of al Qaeda BEFORE the war? The evidence clearly suggests no. None of the major factions in Iraq will tolerate an al Qaeda presence: the Shiites and Kurds would kill them and the Sunnis aren't naturally aligned with them either. The Sunni insurgency currently relies on Saudi Arabia (our supposed allies) for their support. Quite simply, al Qaeda would not be welcome in Iraq if the U.S. decided to redeploy. Strategic redeployment would allow us to station our troops close enough to respond but far enough removed from the conflict that our troops would not serve as targets for the myriad factions. In short: I consider the "validate al Qaeda strategy" to be complete and utter fiction. The term al Qaeda simply confuses us about the real truth of the war and the anomalous loyalties and alliances in this complex region.

[randalds]

The White House does not have "War Powers". The Constitution clearly states that the Congress has the power to declare war. Yes the president is the commander in chief, but it is Congress that tells him what he or she is commander in chief of. He or she is not a King or Dictator, as much as this administrations wishes it were otherwise. They are our servants and through Congress we pass on our orders to the Executive branch. If they know what's good for them they'll obey our orders or face the consequences. This presidency has lost it's way. It thinks it's our ruler, but in MY country the people rule the leaders, not the other way around and it's time we reminded these as*sholes of that truth! It's our government, not Bush and Cheney's and it's time for these as*sholes to go away before they murder more innocent people.

[randalds]

The Congress passed the War Powers Act and, by definition, has the power to revoke it. It's time to revoke it now. A dictator want to be is abusing that act for his own personal reasons and gain. His powers must be stripped and he must be impeached. Now. Not later. Today.

[observantx]

"There's a lot of ... shifting sands in the Democrats' position right now," deputy White House press secretary Tony Fratto said. "It's hard to say exactly what their position is."

What? Can%u2019t they even get Tony Snowjob to prattle this nonsense? They had to trot out the Deputy Spinmeister?

The real shifting sands are in our White House. Every reason and justification for the war has been changed from the onset as needed. The minute each reason was proven false, another was whipped up and served hot. First it was Saddam%u2019s WMDs, then his role in 9/11, then Saddam%u2019s support of Al Qaeda, and so on, and so on, and so on, ad nauseum.

What total hypocrisy and b*llshit.

[inventagod]

Sorry, Fascist Bu$h -

Congress giveth, and Congress taketh away....

[migrainegram]

The man is crazy!!

He is behaving more and more like a dictator. Put him in a uniform, give him a mustache, and a raised arm with rifle in-hand. Can anyone spell Saddam?

What a sorry representative for our country, and the fact he has yet to be impeached is nauseating.

[tuckerndfw]

American voters revoked his authority in November 2006. We're just waiting for the paperwork to reach his desk.

This is not only the most corrupt & incompetent administration in US history, it is the most arrogant and out of touch administration in US history.

Voters didn't elect Democrats just so the White House could continue business as usual. Or, so George Bush could give a few of his incoherent "stay the course" speeches and continue down the path of failure he chose.

It is time for congress to cut off his funds.

Let him veto that.

[condumism]

The Republicon Party, now nothing more than a regional party represetning the Southern States. Lincoln has got to be roiling in his grave.

[terrapin78]

With dreck-meisters like Lieberman how will the needed paperwork ever get to Bush's desk? It won't. More and more I feel we are going to have to wait for the HUGE Democratic MAJORITY on Jan 2009 to end this travesty.

Blame the Republican rubber-stampers like Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham (nice name for a GIRL) and Lieberman, et al for the continuation of the nation building exercise known as the Iraq War.

[gramto7]

Clemenhagen1 and RandalDS,

I hope you do not mind, but I have send your words to my congressmen, senate and house. I cannot verbalize my feelings anymore precisely than the two of you have. I did let them know that the words were not my own but the feelings behind them are!

[moxford0]

I believe Bush should think about attacking Cuba because of its status as being a supporter of terror. If Bush decides to attack, may he at least have the courtesy to warn the Canadians having a cocktail by the swimming pool.

[rsoxfan1123]

It is time for congress to cut off his funds.

Let him veto that.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 06:04 PM : Feb 23, 2007

I'd bet Bush wishes they would cut off funds. it would give him the way out that he wants and he could then blame the Iraq failure on the democrats.

[hayesc1-2009]

I hope with everything in me that Congress will continue this until they cut through the BS that has been shoved down our throats by the Bush Administration.

[lieberman181]

Clementhagen,

How's Adolf these days. Why don't you and half of these vomit-filled, toilet water swilling Neo-Nazi Libs who love Sharia and hate America join him?

After all, here's a memo to Osama:

Dear Exalted Osama,

We, the following, Botox Girl Pelosi, Prune Face Harry, Cuckolded Shrill Shrew, Steppin' Fetchit Osama Barack Alabama, KKK Byrd, the Drunk Intern Killer, Plagarizer Joe, the Peanut Coward and Bigot Jimmeeee, the Draft Dodging Pervert and Serb murderer, the traitors Kerry, Webb, Murtha, McDermott, and our Republican in name only friends Hagel and James Oilcan F the Jews Baker, want you to know that we support you - and give our best wishes to an Islamofascist victory over America.

Yep, we might have been born here but we prefer your Sharia than to win a victory. So do a lot of fellow bozo fascists who hate - hate America, hate Israel, hate Christians and hate Jews.

But we love you, Osama. Even when we say we support our troops we actually support their surrender to our fellow Hitlerite.

Sieg Heil Osama, and Princess Nan does promise to wear that Hajibi you sent her.

Cordially the American Neo-Fascist Party, formerly known as the Democrats.

Now hyenas and surrender monkeys - don't forget to go Ape.

[moxford0]

I am afraid of the islamic militants that may hop aboard a camel and fly across the Atlantic to attack America. There may be multitudes. Better fight them there than here!

[tuckerndfw]

I'd bet Bush wishes they would cut off funds. it would give him the way out that he wants and he could then blame the Iraq failure on the democrats.

Posted by rsoxfan1123 at 06:16 PM : Feb 23, 2007


Democrats do not have enough votes to pass legislation and override a veto. They have no realistic alternative other than refusing to approve a budget that includes funding for Iraq. There is no other realistic choice.

Refusing to do your duty out of fear of being blamed for someone else's mistakes is the height of cowardice. And if Democrats refuse to cut off funds, this nation is deep, deep trouble. Thwt would mean we no leadership worthy of the title.

[tuckerndfw]

Maybe someone in Congress will finally read the resolution they passed.

It did not grant George Bush dictatorial war powers. It authorized use of force IF the UN passed a resolution authorizing use of force. The UN passed no such resolution.

Which means George Bush did not have congressional approval to order the original invasion.

[moxford0]

Congress needs to cut off more than Bush's funds!

[formrusmcsgt]

The White House said Friday it would oppose any attempt by Senate Democrats to revoke the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the war in Iraq and to restrict U.S. troops to a limited mission as they prepared to withdraw.
---------------------
It was the Congress' to give, and it's the Congress' to take away as well.....

[heetseeker]

"I'd bet Bush wishes they would cut off funds. it would give him the way out that he wants and he could then blame the Iraq failure on the democrats."

rsoxfan1123

You have hit on something there. The Democrats are sipping from the poison chalice. In many ways their last position has become worse than the first. Had they not taken the House & Senate then Bush would have been able plan his own downfall, completely unmolested by a compliant legislature. Now things are different. The Democrats are "players", decision makers (if not "deciders"). For the President, this is the unexpected back door and get out of jail free card that is more than he could have wished for.

The President will always be culpable for the Iraq debacle, but so will the Democrats - he will see to that.

[bm6005]

Aaaaarrrgggghhhh!!!!!!!!!!

[arthurcl1]

No more Green Lights from old Bushes buddys from last congress, now the emperor has no clothes!

[emhawks]

How interesting all this is. Think about it. As time goes by, Bush & Cheney are truly showing their true colors. Many of us who post here have known their "true colors" for years, but many have not. As Bush & Cheney oppose & talk against the American people, the Senators, the Representatives & the Judiciary, the more they "talk" their way down the yellow-brick road towards impeachment/indictment. Especially Cheney (read the article about what he has to say about Pelosi); the more Cheney talks the deeper his foot goes into his mouth & the more infuriated he makes the "Washington Brass".

[perception5]

I'm sure glad the Democrats aren't politicizing the Iraq war...........

In 2008 it will be time to get rid of this "do nothing Congress"....!!!!!

[scott4261]

The GOP is imploding.

[corpknot]

For some time now it has been perfectly obvious that Bush does not care about the best interests of the American people. Most of his presidency has been spent pumping public money to corporations and the wealthy and you can be sure that he benefits from this as well. If you apply this common thread to his programs then everything makes sense. Just ask yourself who benefits. Then it becomes clear that he is nothing more than a corporate lackey.

[wizest]

This country started by a George it will end with a George. Any questions?

[selenite1]

George Bush is obviously deranged.

He and Cheney require impeachment and commitment to a penal/mental facility.

This farce has gone on long enough.

[willyn3]

Bush will veto anything the Congress passes. He does not care what happens to the troops and never has anymore than for the citizens of New Orleans. Lets face it, we have a serious challenge in this country and that is how do we get rid of this usurper legally. Impeachment proceeding should begin now and to be followed closely with charges against Cheney, allowing the Republicans a chance to appoint a responsible replacement for Cheney prior to the removal of Bush. If Cheney were to fight to the finish and not resign then Speaker Pelosi would become President.

[rsoxfan1123]

heetseeker-that's why the dems won't cut the funding. It would amount to cutting their own political throats and bush knows it. they really are stuck. This maneuver to limit his power by undeclaring the war might work, especially considering that he lied to Congress to get them to support this invasion to begin with.

[lewblacca]

"Maybe someone in Congress will finally read the resolution they passed.

It did not grant George Bush dictatorial war powers. It authorized use of force IF the UN passed a resolution authorizing use of force. The UN passed no such resolution.

Which means George Bush did not have congressional approval to order the original invasion."

Posted by tuckerndfw at 06:34 PM : Feb 23, 2007

I disagree...

The following paragraph is taken from the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107SPViMg::

"Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

continued...

[lewblacca]

...

Next, check out what is said in the UN RESOLUTION 678 in the following paragraph - http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm

"2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use ALL NECESSARY MEANS to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;"

The documents don't lie.

[tuckerndfw]

There is no chance that Bush or Cheney will be impeached. Impeachment is far more difficult than passing a non-binding resolution.

Whether Democrats like it or not, they only have ONE choice if they intend to stop the madman in the White House.

And that one choice is funding.

If they refuse to cut off funding, then we can end any discussion of "constitutional rights" because George Bush claims he, as a "war time president," has unlimited authority.

Which means the US is a dictatorship. We can only hope he willing leaves office in 2008, given the fact he claims unlimited power and congress refuses to successfully challenge that assertion.

[tuckerndfw]

The documents don't lie.

Posted by lewblacca at 07:48 PM : Feb 23, 2007

We agree. Where we disagree is with you referring to the preamble, which is legally meaningless, and the reference to UNSCR 678, a resolution that became irrelevant ( KEY WORD) when Iraqi forces withdrew from Iraq.

Otherwise, there would have been no need for congress to pass an additional resolution.

Here is what congress authorized George Bush to do:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

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


"All relevant (resolutions)" does not include anything from the "Gulf War," it refers to the resolution that did not pass.

Remember "Freedom Fries?" Remember George Bush and most of his administration denouncing the UN as irrelevant and how the president was not bound by international law when it came to "protecting Americans"?

Congress did NOT give George Bush authority to order the invasion of Iraq without an additional Security Council resolution. And, that did not happen.

[tank611]

QUOTE:

Which means George Bush did not have congressional approval to order the original invasion.

Yes he did:

H.J. Res. 114

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

[justfacts2]

It is a sad state of affairs when your own country's military is calling for an end to the Iraq War and they have to petition Congress to do it. I am beginning to believe Bush is just as bad as Hussein was, if not worse! I still say he needs to be brought before the UN to answer for war crimes when he gets out of office.

[tuckerndfw]

In previous comment, "when Iraqi forces withdrew from Iraq." should read "when Iraqi forces withdrew from Kuwait."

Tank,

No, he did not. And, does not.

The authorization requires a UN Security Council resolution that did not pass. No "relevant security council resolution" authorized use of force.

And, member states do not have the authority to enforce resolutions without Security Council approval.

The US Congress does not have authority over the UN Security Council, or to independently pick and choose UN resolutions to enforce.

George Bush had no legal authority to order the invasion of Iraq.

[tank611]

QUOTE:

Congress did NOT give George Bush authority to order the invasion of Iraq without an additional Security Council resolution

Yes Congress did give Bush authority to invade. The Congressional Resolution(H J RES 114) does not sat
ANYTHING

[lewblacca]

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

Tucker,

Maybe I'm missing something, but where does it say that 1 is dependant on 2... I think he did what he saw fit as stated in (a).

[tank611]

QUOTE:

'Congress did NOT give George Bush authority to order the invasion of Iraq without an additional Security Council resolution'

Yes Congress did give Bush authority to invade. The Congressional Resolution(H J RES 114) does not say
ANYTHING about needing an additional Security Council resolution.

[fascistusa]

How STUPID are you People?

Blah. Blah. Blah. This order. Illegal. His authority. NONSENSE.

YOU LIVE IN A FASCIST COUNTRY RULED BY THE ELITE!!!!

THE WAR IS ABOUT CORPORATE PROFITS!!!

DO YOU KNOW WHO PAID THE PRICE FOR WHAT HITLER DID?? THE GERMAN PEOPLE. "They thought they were FREE". They believed the PROPAGANDA Hitler fed them.

[tuckerndfw]

Tank,

The words "relevant resolutions" require a resolution authorizing use of force. Member states cannot use force without UN Security Council approval. Member states cannot independently decide to use force.

And, no "relevant resolution" authorized use of force.

George Bush had no legal authority to order the invasion of Iraq.

[tank611]

QUOTE:

'THE WAR IS ABOUT CORPORATE PROFITS'

The war is about preventing another 9/11 type attack by installing democratic governments througout the Middle East.

[tuckerndfw]

Tucker,

where does it say that 1 is dependant on 2... I think he did what he saw fit as stated in (a).

Posted by lewblacca at 08:14 PM : Feb 23, 2007

Within legal documents, two of the most important words can be: "or" and "and."

"Or" means any one of the conditions applies, "and" means all conditions apply.

The "and" requires that both conditions must be met. If Congress had used the word "or," you would be correct and he would have had authority.

But, by using "and," Congress based approval on a UN Security Council resolution that did not pass.

[tuckerndfw]

The war is about preventing another 9/11 type attack by installing democratic governments througout the Middle East.

Posted by Tank611 at 08:22 PM : Feb 23, 2007

Really?

Iraq had nothing to do with the events of 9/11/01, so what does installing a US approved government in Iraq have to do with 9/11/01?

The Palestinians recently democratically elected a government the US refuses to recognize.

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are dictatorships and according to the Bush administration, our closest allies other than UK & Israel.

The fatts do not seem to support your assertions.

[tank611]

QUOTE:

'The words "relevant resolutions" require a resolution authorizing use of force. Member states cannot use force without UN Security Council approval. Member states cannot independently decide to use force'

Let's look at the resolution again:

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq

The UN had a laundry list of grievences against Iraq. We used their list as a guide for our actions in Iraq.

[mh4cbs1]

Tank611:

YOu have got to be kidding! Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Saddam was a secular brutal dictator - the kind that the US loves so long as they are friendly to US Corporate interests. Saddam feared and repressed any form of Isalmic fundamentalist extremism.

So if you don't understand why Bush invaded Iraq, and lied and scared the American people into it with fake alerts, fake WMDs, fake aluminum tubes, fake unranium from Niger, fake Al Quaeda links... then Educate Yourself. Read the PNAC paper of 2000. Read the downing street memos, books and articles by former CIA (like Tyler Drumheller), UN weapons inspectors (Scott Ritter, Hans Blix), NSC Richard Clarke, chief of staff to Colin Powel Larry Wilkerson (who called the WMDs a "HOAX"... Read about the Dod Office of Strategic Plans that Cheney and Rummy set up...

If you don't know what this is all about, you are not doing your civic duty to stay informed and keep your government in check. Bush and Cheney love chumps like you - ignorant, suseptable to fake patriotism, mindless slogans....

The Cheney/Bush regime do not care one bit about the troops. These chickenhawk draft dodgers are using our troops as cannon fodder for their NeoCon War for regional dominance and access to the Oil.

"Democracy" in Iraq has NOTHING to do with it, other that it became a necessary political AFTERTHOUGHT, by which to sell the War to the American people when their lies started to unravel.

[tuckerndfw]

Tank,

The word "relevant" negates that "laundry list" of resolutions.

The UN Security Council had authorized inspections in response to that "laundry list." The Security Council did NOT authorize use of force.

Member states cannot (legally) pick and choose UN resolutions they want to enforce, nor can member states (legally) use force without explicit UN Security Council approval.

Member states (US, UK) cannot claim they are "enforcing" UN resolutions while violating the UN Charter and resolutions.

Which is what the Bush administration has done.

There is no legal basis whatsoever for the invasion of Iraq.

[emhawks]

To WillyN3: Good post; I agree completely!
This is a side-note (or "heads-up"), but I find this very alarming. Tonight on Lou Dobbs, a large part of his show was about the meeting between Secretary Rice, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff & Commerce Sec. Gutierrez with their Mexican & Canadian counterparts in Ottawa today. They're discussing the Security & Prosperity Partnership, which could lead to a "North American Union". All this comes without the consent of Congress or the American people (the voters). It's being done quietly & many large corporations are in favor of this.
The plan to create a NAU by 2010 as a regional government ( US, Mexico, Canada) is directly stated only in the May 2005 task force report "Building a North American Community" by the Council on Foreign Relations.
Bush & Cheney are pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union by 2010 which will erase our borders with both Mexico & Canada. This will dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union.
I find this not only alarming, but infuriating! I believe the American people should demand an end to any further expansion of the NAU until we are allowed to vote on this.
There are many websites available; use Google for North American Union.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."- Wendell Phillips

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."- Unknown

[egotistic]

Turn Iraq into a sheet of glass. Problem solved...

And for the next armchair politician/war general that thinks it wouldn't work, your wrong.

The US is the ONLY country to use an atomic bomb against another country. Nobody would retaliate against us. So the UN puts sanctions on us? Good, we now have to start producing our own materials again creating more jobs. We also take the oil left in Iraq and bring it back to the states. We then force the EU to side with us as they will need "our" oil.

I have just split the world in half in the manner of a month.

Think it through, it would work...

*yawn*