(CONGRESS) - IS THIS LEGAL? [PLEASE read, important]?

Question

****
PLEASE, UNLESS YOU'VE READ THE FOLLOWING, DONT BOTHER ANSWERING!

VERY IMPORTANT!!
IS CONGRESS REALLY BLACKMAILING THE PRESIDENT?!
READ MORE!
****

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm
In the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (an act signed by President Clinton in 1998 in which Bush and congress must obide by), it says in the introduction/summary...

"Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President's criteria."

Also, under section 5 of the Iraq Liberations Act of 1998, it says...


"...(b) DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL ORGANIZATIONS- At any time subsequent to the initial designation pursuant to subsection (a), the President may designate one or more additional Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.

(c) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION- In designating an organization pursuant to this section, the President shall consider only organizations that--

(1) include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime; and

(2) are committed to democratic values, to respect for human rights, to peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, to maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and to fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime."

However, the Congress forcably (because Bush was already losing support to the media, he couldn't say no.. because he knew that the media would chew that one up and try their best to make Bush bad. Why? Because thats how they have been treating him for the past 4 years.) introduced the Iraq Study Group, under the pretense that it was a bi-partisan investigative committee. It is clearly declared, with detail, that there should be no type of AMERICAN Democratic organization. It says, "the President shall consider only organizations that--

(1) include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime;"

It specifically says that the President should not consider any info provided to them by anyone other then an Anti-Saddam, bi-partisan, Iraqi group. Last time i checked, The Iraqi Study Group was not Iraqi.

Does Congress feel that the rules created in 1998 do not apply to them?

Why do they ignore the fact that it clearly states that the Iraqi's should be the only ones creating committee's?
I thought the Congress supposedly thought the Iraqi's could police+govern themselves? Yet they dont trust the Iraqi's to start a political committee to discuss Iraq? OR are they throwing America a quick one when they say these anti-war things, when really they are trying to make the administration fail in Iraq in order to make the current administration look bad to gain votes?

The Democratic media calls-out Bush as being ignorant and stubborn, when, in accordance to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, President Bush is legally.. not supposed to implement the ideas of these illegal committee's theories in his Plan for Iraq..

----
Also, I was thinking about this on my ride to work today, isn't the fact that the Democrat's in Congress call Bush ignorant for not listening to the Iraq Study Group, not only Flip-Floppy, but EXTREME hypocritical? I was researching the reasons in which we went to war with Iraq, as you can see above, and I came around something that I didn't expect, though I probably should have. In 1998, and years before that, the Democrats fully supported UNSCOM and their findings (Sources Link under A1-1 at the bottom). However, 7 years later, after they were told that they didnt find everything that they expected to find... They changed their mind and started saying that they don't agree with the reports UNSCOM gave the President... and they started saying bad things about UNSCOM...

And now that the Democratic majority of the Congress implemented the Iraq Study Group, the Democrats in Congress complain about Bush's reluctance to base his policies on the war solely on the findings of the Iraq Study Group. Do the Democrat's in Congress not understand that history repeats itself? Or are they just unbelievably Hypocritical with their Flip-Flop ideologies?
----

Anyways..
..So i ask these questions...

Is the Iraq Study Group a legal organization, or was it forced upon Bush due to blackmail from Congress?

Why do people call Bush ignorant when he isnt legally allowed to listen to these people?

I saw a bumber sticker on my way to work that said, "IMPEACH BUSH"...
Now, assuming that this was a non-legit, illegaly started committee, wouldn't most members of Congress be more impeachment worthy, not Bush?


Sources for these records can be found here:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

Sources Link A1-1:
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/15/un.iraq/

Joe Smow -
Legit question, i suppose..
Read these official U.N. + UNSCOM reports-
http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/index.html

Also, make sure you read "Saddam's Shopping Spree"

thats interesting!

artgurl-
Please, also, read the link i sent the last person..

"...Bush and Cheney cooked the books convincing congress and the American people that there were WMD's in Iraq"

Actually, your wrong again.
Its called the Libby Case
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,248980,00.html
Info sealed and on-route to Pres. Bush was intercepted by a CIA op... then the CIA op. paid off a journalist to make up a fake story stating that Cheney had actually withheld the info from Bush. In reality, the CIA op. withheld the info from the Bush Admin. so that they would essentially be called "Liars" by the american people. We'll, lets just say they got caught..

Bert T-
have you been asleep since mid-term elections?

"A Republican Congress"?
SINCE WHEN?!
we never had these kinda problems with the GOP holding Congress...

g-
Yes, some parts of it are suggestions. But the parts that are, say they are.
It is a Bill signed by the House of Reps, then unanymouslly voted for by the Senate, and then officially signed by the President of The United States, which at the time was Bill Clinton.

It was direct policy that if the US got ina war with Iraq, the described steps would HAVE TO be implemented (some describe things the president must do if he decides to do such and such...)
Iraq HAS TO support Iraq in its move to Democracy, IF Iraq wanted it and IF we go to war with Iraq.

Most of this you can figure out if you read it carefully...

***
For those of you who still think its not a eal law, just a plan...

House Actions
Sep 29, 98:
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Oct 2, 98:
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Oct 2, 98:
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Oct 5, 98:
Called up by House under suspension of the rules.
Considered by House as unfinished business.
Passed House (Amended) by Yea-Nay Vote: 360 - 38 (Roll No. 482).
Senate Actions
Oct 6, 98:
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Oct 7, 98:
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Oct 8, 98:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Executive Actions
Oct 7, 98:
Cleared for White House.
Oct 20, 98:
Presented to President.
Oct 31, 98:
Became Public Law No: 105-338.
Signed by President.


Hence
"Became Public Law No: 105-338.
Signed by President. "

Answer 1

I have read the Iraqi liberation act, and all the things that the US government believed about Saddam prior to Bush even entering office. How people could think the Iraq war being unjust with all this evidence is just astounding to me though

Answer 2

Well for one the Iraq Liberation Act has nothing to do with the Iraq Study Group.

The ILA has to do with organization and parties in or outside of Iraq, composed of people that left Iraq due to Saddam persecution or other reasons. A sort of Iraqi Underground.

The Study Group is a congressional panel to come up with recommendations for a war that the Bush Admin seriously screwed up. It's main goal is what can we do to stabilize Iraq.

The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

EDIT: Not sure why you added the CNN link since as far as I can see it has nothing to do with either.

EDIT2:
Re read you post and found the answer to the above.
For one, I'm not really sure what Democrats you are saying turned against UNSCM and without sources I can't comment on them. But I can say the article you linked said nothing about Democrats, only United Nation entities and a report that Clinton "would study" (ie hadn't seen yet).
I can say Congress has been Republican controlled until this year, so any Congressional action that you don't agree with should be taken up with them.

So the point remains. Where is the blackmail?

Bush had 4 years or so to stabilize Iraq, but nothing has changed. Congress has a duty to check and balance the President...especially one that has been running rampant for 6 years.

And once again, you are barking up the wrong tree anyway. The ILA has no significance to the Study Group.

Answer 3

Excellent find. I did know that the demos were for regime change in Iraq during the Clinton years but my information was basically from TV and the Internet with links like this ( I never actually saw th bill agreeing to it) ; sample below from http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

President Bill Clinton in 1998
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

BTW, I can't believe Artgurlls answer, how ignorant!

Answer 4

I don't really see the connection with the provisions of the Iraq Liberation Act, designed to give assistance to Kurdish and other opponents of Saddam Hussein to bring about political change, and the existence of the Iraq Study Group.
Most Presidents would at least listen to what they have to say as a result of their many hours of study. He is not legally bound to follow any of their recommendations, though. The important thing is that Congress gets a voice, or else why are they there at all?

Answer 5

Really? You going to blame this on media, the guy cannot stop talking about his South American Sex partner and how it's a love story, when his children and wife nearby. I am republican and I have problems with it. I hated bill Clinton because he defiled the office of Presidency. It's time we hold our politicians to a higher standard. I have problem with Sanford because he is a hypocrite. He preaches about family values and then turns around and has a mistress. I would say the only republican senator i trust is Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina, he is an honorable man.

Answer 6

No congress is going alone in the oil looting of iraq but congress is playing this unfriendly picture for the world to see that not all American are in it. War is going to stay democrats do not give a sh$%#t about people our marine,Iraqis, only the oil profits.

Answer 7

Ok, I read what you wrote. But it doesn't matter. You are worrying about the wrong things in the first place. You should be worrying about Bush getting as many countries as he can, ready to become part of the New World Order. That is what he is doing over there. He needs to be stopped(his actions I mean) before it is too late.

Answer 8

seems like the president is the only one following the rules here....seeing as how he is pretty much ignoring the "study group"

as he should

Answer 9

Prior to our going to Iraq in 2003, Bush and Cheney cooked the books convincing congress and the American people that there were WMD's in Iraq. dude, the congress didn't vote for war. They voted to let the president have the power to go to war if in fact the UN inspections failed. Bush took that vote and told the UN to get out of Iraq because they were going to bomb in 3 days.
Iraq did nothing to warrent attack against them. No WMD's found and no connections to al queda and 9/11.

Answer 10

Yes. Heh, I may be going out on a limb here but are you like a scientist.