Bush to seek Congress OK on Iraq Makes sense to me. If we're going to go to war with Iraq, Bush needs to have the support of the country behind him. And the best method for that, however imperfect, is to get the people's representatives to support him. That's why it's in the Constitution in the first place.
hmm.. or he can just do what Clinton did.Blindly attack nations without asking anyones approval. "a newspaper clipping saying there are attrocities in the Balkans, Lets bomb Belgrade" "Sudan has a asprin factory ,damn them! they might terrorize my kitty cat.. lets bomb them!" "WHAT!? The taliban is going to hand over Osama to the Saudis.. Lets Bomb them!" " you mean these attacks HAVENT taken away from my scandals.. oh crap"
while zverskiy yobar is obviously a blind and biased President Clinton basher, he does make a good point. Clinton bombed people (even Iraq) and it went without much objection. Bush merely talks about it and the whole world goes crazy. If Bush had been the one to bomb that factory in Sudan, I think the world would explode in protest.
Bush isn't talking about bombing. He's talking about occupation and regime change- which is what makes people nervous.
This is all politics, he could care less about congressional support and believes he has the right under the original proclamation of war handed to his father. He wants to force a vote so that Democrats who have been bashing him in congress have to take a firm side: Yes for war: Then they need to leave him alone No: Risk what their constituents might say.
Actually, Democrats in Congress have been very careful not to criticize Bush on this topic. Hell, that goofball Biden parroted the Bush line yesterday. It's Republicans in Congress who have been doing the criticism. If you want to call asking the President to follow the Constitution he swore to uphold and defend "criticism," of course. Oh, and please, keep bashing Clinton. Because public resentment of Bill Clinton is at an all-time high, and is going to be a big, big old winner at the polls for the GOP. Hey, did you hear we're hosting the World Cup this year? And I heard something about O.J. Simpson being accused of murder, but he seems like too nice a guy to do anything like that.
Any vote in Congress is going to be a foregone conclusion in favor of the use of force. I'll give you the vote totals right now: 100-0 in the Senate and 434-1 in the House, with the lone vote against being whatever yahoo represents Berzerkley at the time. Politicians are chicken sh!ts by nature and every one of them knows their @ss would be out the door if they voted against action. That's why there will be a vote before the election recess...for GWB to call out the windbags in Congress to make a public yes or no stand.
I wish he would have done that with Srebenica -- would have prevented thousands of "protected" Muslims from being slaughtered. How can we convince the people of Iraq that we would be trying to help them? WE have been bombing the living hell out of these people for a decade. WE have been in control of the sanctions placed on Iraq that have direct impact on the ordinary citizen. Without the support of the people, we have no chance in hell of changing the regime to one that is not corrupt. I agree with Kobranzilla -- Bush is doing this just for Democrats and Republicans alike to take a firm side. He could be doing that as well as giving Iraq another firm nod that something will come down.
He is talking about an unnessary course of action. If Sadaam has shown he is a threat to any country (by that I mean he is about ready to invade it), then a case for war against Iraq can be made. However, Bush and Blair have not made a strong enough case to go in. Eventually, though, Bush will use the excuse that the resolutions passed before the Gulf War are still in force and invade anyway, thus really putting this economy in the crapper.
Unneccesary course of action for everyone except GW. It's merely a political move to improve his public opinion. Only reason he is stalling now and saying he cares about what congress and our allies have to say, is becuase he's worried the whole move will backfire on him. It been 'wag the dog' ever since Sept 11: "CBS Evening News reported on Wednesday that it had obtained documents showing that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's determination that Saddam should be toppled began with an hour of the Sept. 11 attacks....CBS said notes taken by military aides, who were with Rumsfeld when the attacks occurred, quoted him as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough to hit S.H." -- meaning Saddam Hussein -- even though intelligence reports all pointed toward Osama bin Laden ( news - web sites) being behind the attacks. At same time, not only UBL (bin Laden)," the notes quoted Rumsfeld as saying: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not," CBS reported." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=2&cid=578&u=/nm/20020904/ts_nm/iraq_usa_dc
> Unneccesary course of action for everyone > except GW. It's merely a political move to > improve his public opinion. Iraq is the last place on earth where it is cheap to find new oil. That is why Bush must invade. It is also why Blair must help him, no matter what the English people think.
You're way off. While I think it would pass both Houses eventually, it wouldn't right now. The Senate will be a close vote--Dems quitely oppose and a large section of republicans have problems. I imagine the Senate vote being about 60-40, given nothing new happens.
You want war, infidels! "The Senate also gave its official consent for the president to use force against those responsible for the attacks." -September 14, 2001 from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/12/politics/main310971.shtml Lot's of news articles point Muhammed Atta was liked to Iraq and had meetings over there along with a lot of other evidence that points to them.
you probably would be better off sticking to more recent news reports, particularly the ones showing that the alleged meetings between Atta and Iraqi officials (first reported by Czech intelligence sources) haven't been corroborated, plus the fact that it would have been almost impossible for Atta to get there logistically. I'd also love to see this "lots of other evidence" as would Congress I imagine. But you go on believing what you're going to believe.
> "The Senate also gave its official consent for the > president to use force against those responsible > for the attacks." We know that most of the hijackers were Saudi. We think that their funding came from Bin Ladin, a Saudi. If there isn't a Bin Ladin connection, it is almost certain that they got their funding through other Saudis. Now, there is a nation that gives the Saudis billions of dollars, sells them advanced weapons, and whose leader is a close friend of the Saudi leadership. That nation is The United States of America. Bombing begins in 5 minutes.
I think we all know and have seen that bush only knows and cares about one thing, getting reelected and if that means getting us in an illegal war so that he and his frat buddies have another four years to steal our IRA's and destory every company and stockholder, while weaving their magic republican tale of how it is the welfare mother that is really the problem, then he will like his dad and his brother he has no conscience about our children and the iraqic children that will die....of course most of our soliders will die from bad equipment or supplies sold at an extremely inflated price to by a defense contractor friend of the administration.