After the whereas clauses:

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

And, as I said on your site, you're wrong:

Biden is saying the president had to show the intelligence to be sound. The part you quote says the president has to show that we've run out of diplomatic options, which hello we had (although that's neither here nor there in relation to this argument). Either Biden can't read or he's not sure what he supported. That's a problem.

Again, where were the Democrats when this war started saying they're not convinced of the reasoning? Isn't there something a little gross about them using polls to determine their position on something as important as war?

read it again. slower. highlighting and breaking apart large chunks with commas might help. like this:

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection to use force, the President shall, prior to such exercise, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that reliance by the United States on peaceful means alone will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

Meaning: Before he drops da bombs, Prez must show Iraq is a continuing threat to us that can't be contained with sanctions or weapons inspectors.

Now the question is why'd the President think Iraq a continuing threat when it had no WMD?

And if the answer is well, we relied on five year documents from the clinton administration, or an unreliable snitch, well, issues.

As for your "questioning the timing" of the democratic complaints, I agree with you and insert my combo shoulder shrug/head shake.

And, again, as I commented on your site:

Wow, you're so dumb. How do you not walk into walls? How about you start at the top of the resolution and read all the reasons that CONGRESS felt force would be needed against Iraq. There were many reasons other than WMD, Congress made a great case in its own resolution. Maybe some hooked on phonics tapes for both you and Biden for Christmas?

To respond to your there were many reasons screed, according to the resolution this is what the president had to show: "continuing threat." if he can show that, great, he should go right ahead and do that instead of trying to attack congress back.

and by the by, senator warner agreed with biden's reading of the resolution. So...you gonna get him hooked on phonics too? Gonna get one for everybody except yourself and i suppose bush and cheney?

according to the resolution this is what the president had to show: "continuing threat."

Ok, again, this war began some time ago. If they felt Bush had not shown such a threat, where were they circa 2002? 2003? 2004? Clearly he had proven a continuing threat until it became politically expedient for them to say he hadn't. I call bullshit.

And, yes Dawn, if Warner can't read, he should join you and Biden in the remedial class.

Actually it is a moot point. Legally he did not need that bill, as he had all the authorization he needed by a bill passed by Congress and signed by Clinton in 1998. That bill authorized the President to take military action against Iraq to remove their threat of WMDs.

Please see http://www.clarified.blogspot.com/ for my response. :-P

"....where were the Democrats when this war started saying they're not convinced of the reasoning?

133 House members voted against the resolution, 23 Senators did the same.

Virtually all were Democrats.