**A reminder: it was called the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution"**

[Zhade]

What part of that title would lead any reasonable person to conclude that it did NOT call for war?

It's not like they called it the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq To Make Them Disarm Resolution".

That is all.

[patrice]

1. The title says war is okay.

I understand the body of it was worded such that it said whatever you wanted it to say.

Is it still on Thomas? I should go read it.

[upi402]

2. I say that to my radio daily

it don't listen. just like my tv news didn't.

[Hosnon]

3. None. Now, that certainly doesn't mean that the actual resolution couldn't lead

any reasonable person to conclude that it did not call for war. The actual resolution is a bit more noncommittal than the title suggests.

But I assume you didn't want to move beyond the title.

[Zhade]

4. An astounding source that backs up my point:

A quick word regarding that "bad intell" that "fooled" bush & his allies...

[leftchick]

5. thank you for clearng that up

those defending those that were "fooled" are hopefully reading this.

[Individualist]

6. Some try to spin it,

but no matter how hard they try, spin won't turn a skunk into a rose.

[Zhade]

7. It's a lie to say that the resolution didn't call for war, when it was IN THE TITLE!

You know?

[Individualist]

9. Exactly!

But some defenders of those who voted for IWR try and spin it any way they can. Those who voted for IWR have blood on their hands. As Shakespeare said, "Here's the smell of the blood still: all the perfumes
of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand."

[Hippo_Tron]

8. Yup, Democrats should've passed Biden-Lugar and the Levin amendment

Instead of caving into the White House.