The Smirking Chimp - Rebecca Knight

Just take a look at the resolutions passed by Congress: HJ Res. 114 -- SJ Res. 45

In summary Congress finds that:

• Iraq sponsors international terrorism
• Iraq harbors terrorists
• There is a "high risk" that Iraq is planning a "surprise attack"
• against the United States
• Any non-Iraqi terrorists are hereby declared to be Iraqi surrogates
• The invasion of Iraq is, therefore, hereby found to be
• (i) "defensive" and (ii) just part of the "war on terrorism" anyway
• Furthermore, the Congress hereby declares that George W. Bush has
• full Constitutional authority to do whatever he pleases, militarily,
• just as long as he claims he's doing it for "national security"
• reasons.
• Pursuant to this, "national security" is hereby defined to include
• the pursuit (by military force and invasion) of "international peace
• and security", and such interests will now include the
• entire "Persian Gulf region."

Notice that this states THE ENTIRE PERSIAN GULF REGION. Yes, that is the authority Bush has been given. He has been authorized to declare war as he sees fit against any country in the Persian Gulf region.

Is it just me, or do the resolutions say nothing of the sort about declaring war against "any country in the Persian Gulf region."  Am I missing some subtle wording? 

The Senate resolution is a bit vague, although it still refers to the "threat posed by Iraq":

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES

ARMED FORCES.

The President is authorized to use all means that he
determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to
enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions
referenced above, defend the national security interests of
the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and
restore international peace and security in the region.

But the House resolution has no such vague wording.

The point that open season is being declared on the whole Persian Gulf is highlighted, when in fact no such evidence exists.  The quoted phrase, "Persian Gulf region" is only used in reference to the fact that Iraq poses a threat to it.

What am I missing?  Or is Rebecca Knight (and some others I've seen making the same assertion) just making stuff up?

[note, I edited to clarify what I meant by 'any country']