Rumsfeld to Congress: Vote before the UN

Yea, who wouldn't want congress to actually do something before they take yet another "vacation".

Bush 43 takes a month-long working vacation and the media spins it as if he was asleep at the wheel, while congress heads to the airport before anyone finds out they just gave themselves another pay raise, giving the ticket counter agent a hard time because she can't find the special congressional rate (which does exist and requires no advance purchase for pennies on the dollar) then complains about having to wait two hours in security lines.

How many months out of twelve is congress actually in session? Bankers look at them and say, nice hours.

At any rate, isn't this what everyone was saying? Bush (the administration) must go to congress and make their plans and requests official and public? It may not be 100% that force will be used but Bush needs to have that option made clear for various reasons. Bush can use the scare tactics to force Iraq's hand as it can allow the US to react quickly to anything that could occur. Even Tony Blair says, it helps keep the pressure on Iraq.

To think that this is political is an outrage!
What next?
You gonna claim that the 9/11 attacks investigation that will be made public today is political?

I agree that it all is political.

 

Not really indepth analysis - but I felt his delivery of the speech left a considerable amount to be desired.
Lesson - If you're not going to write it yourself, make sure you go through the speech with your scriptwriters.

 

The war on terrorism is dynamic and has many fronts.

Newsflash - US Special forces are said to be moving into Djibouti as we speak.
Location: Eastern Africa, bordering the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea, between Eritrea and Somalia and you guessed by now...right across the Red Sea is Yemen.

Personally, I don't think Iraq should be on the radar, but I don't get paid to make such war plans. But, it is not like we haven't been looking towards these places you, SoFla Metro, have mentioned. Even the Sudan was a target and as has been the growing lore of one Osama bin Laden who again reportedly escaped harm just hours to come.

I take it as the US govt not wanting to be one step behind as usual. Being bound by protocol and political interests can only hurt the effort. Think about it. If we have the chance to move in and prevent Saddam from doing something or have bin Laden in our sights on election day, would we have to play the politics card? I mean, last September 11, 2001 was an election day in NYC.

Far from sending a few cruise missiles the day the president tells the world of a blow job. I could seperate the job at hand and happenings of that day.

 

If "in session" means actually achieving something productive, the answer is zero. If "in session" means self-indulgent posturing, these guys and gals are 24/7 year-round.

By the way, Bush got bush-whacked by Saddam at the UN. Administration should have had the resolution text in hand last week, so that they could dictate the inspection terms to Saddam and have him quibble in view of the world over procedures. Instead, Bush is forced to go on the offensive and say we don't accept at face value Iraq's willingness to allow inspections. In about a week, Hussein might actually be getting sympathy in the court of world opinion. We could get isolated on Iraq (again) ... and fast.

Not that I'm really a hawk or anything, but can't Bush figure these things out? He's only been blowing smoke about Iraq since forever - you'd think they could line up their diplomatic ducks.

 

9/11 was less a motive for taking out Saddam, than a wake-up call to the dangers he poses.


Alex

 

Not sure what you mean. In his speech to the UN, Bush outlined several Iraqi violations of UN mandates, not just inspections. Among other things, he mentioned compliance with the oil-for-food program, the end of civilian persecution and payment of Gulf War reparations. And Iraq hasn't said a single thing about disarmament demands. This is the point the US needs to drive home.

Iraq is supposedly ready to start negotiating the "terms" of "unconditional" inspections. Memo to the UN: Iraq doesn't get a say with regards to "terms" if they're truly unconditional inspections. There are already reports coming out of the Middle East that Iraq's offer refers to "military facilities". Ah, no -- no deal.

Iraq's weak offer is an attempt to give itself time -- time to continue development of WMD, time to shift its existing inventories around, time to regroup. If the UN doesn't understand this point, what good are they? It's been 10 years already!

Although I do agree with you that the presentation of a draft of the Security Council resolution should have been presented shortly after Bush's speech.

Hopefully, in a few weeks' time, as Iraq once again starts to hem and haw, the Frances and Russias will wake up (again).

 

Like, what are these words doing in the same forum, let alone the same sentence?

 

Personally, I am happy to see Iraq saying that they will submit to inspections. However, if they crawfish even once on this, the bombing should begin.

 

It's totally political. The reason they want to vote before the UN is this:

Most of the Democrats want to wait for the UN coalition to form and act with the UN rather than against it. By forcing a vote before the UN votes, odds are many of those Dems will vote against unilateral action. This gives Republican candidates prime mud to sling, and in fact many are already slinging it. As to the whole issue with Iraq; I'm curious about something.

1: W has already announced that Iraq has no connection to 9/11 or Al Queda. Their very government, while reprehensible, is against the fundamentalist muslim way of life, making it the least likely place OBL would be able to work his terror. Therefore, we can't honestly attack them as part of the "War of Terror."

2: That leaves W with his 2nd excuse, that Hussein violated the UN mandates. Well, if we have to go against the decision of the UN in order to punish Iraq for going against the UN, what the hell does that make us?

If W was truly interested in neutralizing possible problems in Iraq, he would work WITH the UN, bring in the inspectors, and wait for Hussein to inevitably mess up, leading to a UN action rather than a US action. It's the only way that makes sense. The problem is that W is not interested in neutralizing the problems in Iraq, he's interested in dragging them out. The propoganda being bandied about in this pre-war phase is being used as a weapon in the congressional and gubernatorial elections in November, and if Bush can hold off long enough (ie: next Spring or Summer) and then drag the invasion (and let's not sugar coat anything, that's what this would be) of Iraq, the Presidential elections might be going on in the middle of a war, an ideal situation for an incumbant, no matter how much that incumbant has messed up in his 4 years. W is wagging the dog.

JMac

 

On one hand you say W should work with the UN, Saddam will surely mess up, then attack. But on the other hand you way Bush will try to hold off until next year and then attack, thus he will be in the middle of a war for the next presidential elections.

So which is it Jmac? Doesnt seem a whole lot different to me. By the way, before this has all come up recently, what has the UN done in the last 4 years in regard to Iraq? It looks like that W and Saddam are the only ones pressing the buttons at the UN. I'm sorry, but this is such a useless organization.

 

They are totally useless. Yesterday there were reports of the Israelis firing on UN inspectors. The UN also did a great job of protecting those Muslims in the former Yugo state. Not to mention Somalia. There are so many other places where all the UN does is stand around and watch.

 

This is what happens when you don't read the newspaper before you post. If you had, you would see that its now the Democratic leadership who want to vote sooner rather than later on an Iraqi resolution. The reason being Iraq is currently dominating the headlines, and Democrats want the vote out of the way so that they can turn fall's focus onto the economy, prescription drug plans, etc., for the November elections.

They do have a connection to terror (witness the departed Abu Nidal and the payments to suicide bombers out of Saddam's personal largesse), but there is no real connection to September 11.

The UN's backbone? Since it doesn't appear that the UN actually has one at this point. Did you listen to Bush's speech at the UN? He said either the UN means what it says or it doesn't, and if the UN is not prepared to act to uphold its mandates, then the US is.

"Dragging them out"? But that's what you want him to do, based on the beginning of the above paragraph -- wait!

At the beginning of this post, you claim its the Dems who want to wait. At the end, it's Bush who wants to drag it out. You also claim that waiting for inspectors and the inevitable Saddam screw-up would be a good thing, and then again claim Bush wants to drag it out.

In your haste to build a 'Wag the Dog' scenario, it seems you've confused yourself.

 

Bomb -- I agree that the Wag-the-Dog scenario is not at play. Though I think Karl Rove has too much of Bush's ear. That whole thing with him saying "you don't introduce a new product in August" makes Bush look completely politically motivated. I don't believe that ... but I don't believe he has control over his Administration either. And collectively, they haven't had a clue how to get their way on Iraq. Even now, they are saying that Bush has not made up his mind on "regime change" (i.e., invasion). Who believes that??

This is what I was trying to say in the earlier post. Iraq has been a priority item for the Administration since 9/11, but they apparently weren't able to anticipate the need to eventually go to the UN on the issue. This should have been apparent from the start.

On a different issue, there is no use in the time-honored practice of trashing the UN. It is the tool of its member states, particularly the US/NATO. If it is ineffective in protecting citizens in war zones, we have only ourselves to blame. We will soon see whether Bush has the ability to push his Iraq agenda through the UN (I doubt it, but Colin Powell just might be able to do it for him, despite being sniped at all the while by the neo-cons in the White House and the Pentagon).

 

My question is this -- what is the goal of the United States administration regarding Iraq? Is it regime change, as has been stated by Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et. al, or is it disarmament, or perhaps both? It seems that what's being trodded out is the argument that one automatically leads to the other (which may be the end result but is hardly the most sound reasoning one can offer). I for one wonder about the inspectors vs. war argument in this sense -- if new inspections can lead to disarmament (as Scott Ritter among others says) why not pursue them? And if they won't because no one believes Saddam and the Iraqi government's honesty and that they won't resort to trickery, then why bother with the posturing of forcing Saddam to concede to allowing inspectors back in and then telling him "well, you're not trustworthy so it doesn't matter whether you let them in or not. We'll never believe what you say or do and you therefore will still have to be removed from power by force"?
I sure as hell have no clear understanding of the administration's stated goal -- never mind the real one -- regarding Iraq. It seems like the goal posts keep shifting and this administration is either going overboard in its cleverness trying to outwit Saddam or is just outright lying to the public about its true reasons for wanting this war.

 

If you're going to trash the UN, at least get it right. The UN wasn't in the former Yugo, it was NATO. While I agree the UN hasn't been as succesful as it should be, it isn't useless. The World Health Organization is part of the UN, the UN was involved in the successful E. Timor peacekeeping mission, it does wonderful things for refugees around the world. These aren't useless missions.

Has the UN done a good job with Iraq...undecided. It hasn't removed Saddam and its resolutions haven't been enforced. However, these resolutions and the fact they haven't been carried out have kept Iraq as largely a pariah state and allowed the US to contain him. Now, it might be used as a vehicle for the US to remove Saddam from power.

The UN does good work. The Security Council could be more useful, but it's only as effective as its member states allow it to be.

 

I understand everything you say. I just don't feel that the administration has made a compelling case for action against Iraq, particularly unilateral action as they seem prepared to do, and with such haste.

Me either. I think there are a lot more pressing issues than Iraq at this moment, the Al-Queda's, Islamic Jihads', Hamas', Hezbollahs', etc. of the world.

 

Yes, NATO was involved in the former Yugoslavia. Bravo to you. They were there cause the UN had failed to make peace and stop the ethnic cleansing.

Remember the story of the UN appointed Dutch peacekeepers that failed to stop "Bosnian Serb forces under General Ratko Mladic from murdering up to 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys in cold blood and then throwing the bodies into mass graves."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/yugo/article/0,2763,685635,00.html

Mladic and his troops took these people right out of a Dutch run refugee camp a safe haven if you will. Yet another botched UN attempt at peace.

I think that the UN should stay out of peace issues cause they fail or if they happen to succeed they don't do it very well. Sure they do a great job at feeding the poor but that is about it.

 

When the UN gets its own standing armed forces that are independent of any nation's or group of nation's command (including the US's), then you can gripe that they and they alone failed to stop whatever current outrage is happening. Of course, don't hold your breath for this to happen...

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=1&cid=578&u=/nm/20020919/ts_nm/iraq_dc

Bush ready to go in, with or without UN support.

"President Bush warned on Thursday the U.N. Security Council must deal with Iraq or the United States and its allies would act alone as Iraq accused Washington of lying to gain control of Middle East oil."

Do we have any allies left? What about negotiating with the UN and Iraq about inspections, Dubya?

"First of all, there are no negotiations to be held with Iraq ... The negotiations are over," Bush said.

Hmmm...didn't even know we were holding any recent negotiations in the first place. This whole mess isn't looking very good.

 

Why are we better off with no international presense in the area? And aren't you forgetting to list the thousands who were saved because of the intervention?

Take off the blinders.