Tom, you're not answering Doug's question, which is clear enough that playing the paperwork game isn't cutting it. But hey, I'll play lawyer with you if you insist. Let's parse the whereases.

The whereases you point to in HJ114 are about 90% a recitation of old grudges, spanning the period from 1991 to 1998. That history lesson is background meant to reinforce the current casus belli, but it is not the case for war itself. As we all recognize, what Doug is asking about are the then-current and proximal justifications for war at that particular time--the Bush Administration sales pitch.

The whereases surface into relevancy with these key statements:

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
...
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
....
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
....
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

To summarize the false premises paragraph by paragraph:

--WMD: none
--Ties to al Qaida: none
--WMD: none
--WMD: none
--connection to 9/11: none

Claims not made:
--the objective is to bring democracy to Iraq
--the objective is to remove Saddam Hussein
--the objective is to liberate the Iraqi people

Seeing it laid out in black and green like that, I guess I can understand why you'd rather not address the question.