http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._wo_en_po/eu_gen_france_iraq_veto_1&printer=1 This really is good news no matter what your views on the Iraq war. US-European relations are vitally important. If this report is true, France should be praised for their maturity, something Bush has in short supply.
First of all - Le Canard, a satirical newspaper? Didn't we make fun of the ChiComs for taking the Onion at face value? Second - says in the article that France thinks Uncle Sam hasn't got nine votes, so the premise is that a veto would be adding sugar to the banana split. We'll see. I'll go with straight-up loss, no veto necessary in the pool. EDIT - you know what, I'll go nuts with optimism on this. No vote, US and UK table the thing to avoid embarrassment, and we start over again after the summer heat. Now, I'm sort of getting this from unreliable Capitol Hill Blue, but now that people are noticing the spy story, and now that it looks like it isn't a fraud after all, I think the Bushies are going to declare embarrassing defeat and try again later. Conveniently, that will be closer to the 2004 election, too!
Hmm. As appealing as that sounds, I just don't see these cats climbing down from this tree. First, there's the expense of shipping those quarter million troops over there and keeping them there. Several of our carriers have been at sea for months and months and can't stay on station a whole lot longer... yadda, yadda. Second, what a humiliating defeat. Do you think 43's ego can handle it? No way he gets another blank check (literally) from Congress again. Of course on the other hand... If five or six months down the road Saddam still isn't playing nice-nice, a resolution looks more do-able. On the other, other hand... can the global financial markets stand much more of this uncertainty? As much as I hate it. I'm resigned to just getting it on and getting it over with, for better or worse. Just rip that tape right off.
Five or six months...12 years. Pretty much the same thing. And in 5 or 6 months, France, Russia and China will still have those oil contracts to protect.
Do you really think that Bush can't claim some sort of victory by disarming Saddam, even without open war? I think no matter how it gets done, it can be spun well enough to show that our threat of force made the UN remove "declare Zionism is Racism" from the top of their to-do list. The only that will hurt the GOP in '04 is the kind of televised body-bag slumber party that was all over the news during Vietnam. When all kinds of registered Dems vote Green again in protest of their party's complete lack of opposition to W's war plans. It sure worked in 2000.
I wouldn't be surprised if Russia and France agreed to have Russia take the lead opposing the war and threatening a veto. France's veto threat was causing US public opinion to support the war because many Americans don't think highly of the French. The last thing the anti-war countries want to do is build domestic US position in favor of war.
The irony is that the surrender jokes come from the same people that think better of the French for wussin out on this issue.
You mean "liberty" jokes. You know what we're never, ever going to read - a promise from the US government to honor existing French, Rooskie and ChiCom oil contracts under the new regime. I mean, if it's ALL about oil to the French, but it's nothing to DO with oil for US, then there's an EASY SOLUTION, ISN'T there? PREFERABLY one with lots of CAPITAL LETTERS.
The Russians don't really care what we think of them (ok ok that's a simplistic answer and isn't really true, but they don't care as much as the French)
"You will lose, Mr. President," Powell told Bush. "You will lose badly and the United States will be humiliated on the world stage."
verybdog, can you tell us more about capitolhillblue? Is it reliable? What is its bias? Where did they get those Powell quotes?