I wasn't really making an "inference." I was simply paying attention to what your link actually said.

"You should have research it before trying to slam down my claim."

I tried to find a different answer elsewhere, and didn't. In any case, you're obviously right about the number of cruise missiles, and I appreciate the other links you provided.

"The link was meant for reference to Clinton using military force."

I don't see your point. Yes, Clinton used "military force." No one denies that, or has forgotten that. But this in itself does not prove that Clinton was in favor of invading/occupying Iraq. That's what you seem to be claiming.

This is what you said to begin with: "the act didn’t stop Clinton from using military force against Iraq." I'm still having a hard time understanding your point. Clinton did not invade/occupy Iraq. ILA did not call for a US invasion/occupation of Iraq (in fact, it expressly withheld that authorization). Nevertheless, lots of people seem to be wishing/pretending that it did. That's what you seem to be implying, and it's also the meaning implied in Joyner's opening sentence.

Yes, Clinton used military force. Yes, Clinton set a policy of regime change. But Clinton's policy of regime change expressly withheld authorization for the use of force for that purpose. This tends to be glossed over and denied, and it shouldn't be.

You made the inference that they were not used but merely available. You should have research it before trying to slam down my claim.

I don't know what you mean when you say "military use was understood." The ILA expressly omitted "military use," in the sense of US forces being involved in regime change. I don't know why you're trying to distort what ILA actually said.

"You however contested mine."

I contested your point because you provided a link which purportedly supported your point, even though it didn't.

This is what Bush said: "a wiretap requires a court order" (4/20/04, text, video).

On 12/19/05, Hayden and Gonzales essentially admitted to the press that they had been conducting warrantless wiretapping, and they explained why they felt it was necessary and legal.

You should explain how Bush's statement was something other than a lie.

16-19 December 1998 (United States, Iraq)
In response to Iraq's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the United States and United Kingdom conduct air strikes and missile attacks on 100 Iraqi military sites. US Navy ships fire more than 325 RGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles, while US Air Force B-52 aircraft fire 90 AGM-109 Tomahawks. US Secretary of Defense William Cohen says that the attacks "degraded [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical and biological weapons."[56]

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/chrono.htm

I didn’t research your point because I didn’t contest it. You however contested mine. Maybe you need me to explain the difference to you.
Talk about being lazy about doing your research.

On December 17, 1998 The Washington Post reported, "The opening U.S. attack against Iraq yesterday involved more than 200 cruise missiles launched from ships in the Persian Gulf and scores of bombs dropped from aircraft flying from the carrier USS Enterprise against targets across the country, defense officials said. With the strikes planned to last at least three days and possibly longer, officials said U.S. and British warplanes stationed in Persian Gulf states and B-52 bombers operating out of the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia would join the effort, which aims to pummel a broad range of targets critical to Iraq's weapons manufacturing and President Saddam Hussein's hold on power

http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/

The ILA was not an authorization for a mass ground invasion. The intent was for regime change. However military use was understood. Clinton later use of military force may have been for other reasons but it also promoted the intent of the ILA.

Fox News has played clips of Clinton supporting the congress authorization for war with Iraq and Bush invasion of Iraq. Of course Clinton thought he could have done better but support he did give. Now he is trying to change history once again.

Oop, sorry. Thanks for pointing that out. Try this one.

"Let us assume you are right."

You need to assume nothing. The document is exceptionally easy to find. Just google the phrase "iraq liberation act." If you are really as helpless as you sound (with regard to doing your own research), that would explain why so much of what you post here is so misinformed.

"The act didn’t stop Clinton from using military force against Iraq including 300 cruise missiles."

First of all, the link you offered doesn't say that Clinton used "300 cruise missiles." It says only this:

More than 300 cruise missiles are available for use against Iraq

Let us know if you really don't grasp the difference between 'were used' vs. 'were available for use.' And let us know if you actually have a source for the claim you made.

Secondly, ILA didn't prohibit the use of force against Iraq. ILA simply called for regime change, while explicitly declining to authorize the use of US forces in carrying out regime change. Bushists often refer to the ILA in a way that implies that it authorized the use of force for the purpose of regime change, even though it expressly omitted that authorization. It's not hard to construe Joyner's opening sentence, above ("Bill Clinton, who as president committed the country to a policy of regime change in Iraq, now claims he was opposed to the Iraq war"), as carrying this false implication.

Yes, Clinton "committed the country to a policy of regime change in Iraq," but he did it with a policy expressly designed to avoid the use of US forces. What Bush did is radically different. Therefore I think it's disingenuous to bring up ILA without being clear about this point.

By such a standard to allege war support, Joe Wilson would be a war supporter. Also, how loud would repubs have yelled if a recent former president and loudly and forcefully objected to Bushes actions so soon after 9-11.

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

A surprise guest at the meeting was Bill Clinton, whose agenda seemed to be protecting his wife. But things didn't work out quite as planned. When Guy Saperstein, a retired lawyer from Oakland, asked Clinton if Democrats who supported the war should apologize, the former President " went f*cking ballistic," according to Saperstein. Forget Hillary, Clinton said angrily during a ten-minute rant; if I was in Congress I would've voted for the war. "It was an extraordinary display of anger and imperiousness," Saperstein says.

As Hillary campaign teeters on defeat and needs to rely upon the political prowesses of the infamous "comeback kid," he stumbles. Clinton reminds everyone, as Hillary's Democratic opponents continue to repeat - the Clinton's have trouble giving straight answers - Clinton admitted that answers he gave about Ms. Lewinsky during a 1998 deposition were false and that he "knowingly gave misleading and evasive answers."