http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20020817/D7LERHGO0.html It looks like Bush is heeding the advice of his party members who have misgivings about an assault on Iraq. It also looks like Bush is waiting to give the justification until a plan is clearly laid out, most likely including an exit strategy.
Two points 1) The only concerns I've ever had is this "trust us we know what we're doing regarding Iraq" attitude that Bush has had. If he presents his case I'm sure most people will be more than willing to take out Iraq. Just show us the info, we have a right to know. 2) Best thread title I've seen. Maybe we should just start nameing threads like programs. Iraq thread 3.9... Isreal/PLO thread 7.3.... abortion thread 9.6..... whats in your cd player thread 290465.9
Refman, I'll give you an "A" for trying to make Bush look reasonable on this one. For pr purposes Bush has to look like he is considering other facts and opininions. However, if you look at what he said in the article it is dplorable. V I'll be making up my mind based upon the latest intelligence, and how best to protect our own country plus our friends and allies." He then goes on to say he'll talk to Condoleeza Rice and Rumsfield, well we know where that will go. Why doesn't he also consult with Ariel Sharon, Joe Lieberman and Richard Perle, too about whether we should attak Iraq? It is deporable that Bush intends to lead us into war with only such window dressing debate. Whatever happened to the Consitutution that Congress should declare war and not just one person, the president? Is it just me or isn't Donald Rumsfield almost a deadringer for that crazed general in the movie Doctor Strangelove>
The Senate is expected to vote after receiving the president's report on the intelligence. Not to mention that fact that we have undertaken "police actions" without a vote of the Senate (Vietnam, Korea, Bosnia etc etc etc).
Vietnma was a horrible wrong of the type I referred to above. Two million Vietnamese and 51,000 I believe Aemerians were killed in that mistake. Many more were disabled of course.
And it goes to show that we have a history of going into military action without a direct threat to the US and without Congressional authority no less. I guess my point was well taken.
Refman if you wish to limit your point that other wars, police actions viloated the Constitution, also I agree. I still say other examples of wrong acting don't justify present wrong acting.
I will sat this. It has been done by Presidents of both parties. We have spent the latter part of the 20th century doing it, yet it surprises you that the 21st century looks no different. I agree that the Senate needs to vote on whether to attack Iraq. Without a Senate vote I will even be against the action. That is because I believe that an important decision like this needs to be bipartisan.
In reference to Viet Nam, there was a congressional resolution. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed by congress based on lies told to them by the President. Looking at history it seems only healthy to question all the reports about Iraq coming out of the whitehouse.
Saddam had Iraq's army attacked Kuwait. US Congress grants President power to wage war with Iraq. Allied coalition defeat Iraq. Iraq was to have weapons inspectors to ensure they can't make WMD, endanger neighbors, etc in accordance with cease fire. Weapons inspectors have been locked out by Saddam. To continue the police methaphor, Saddam has violated probation. I haven't been able to find formal cease fire or peace treaty documents, but my limited understanding would lead me to believe the Office of President would retain the right to wage war (depending on verbiage of declaration of war, treaty, etc.) on Iraq if the cease fire or peace treaty wasn't followed. Whether or not this is sufficient provoking for a war, I don't know.
The US sent troops into Vietnam in 1961 and started to engage the enemy in limited situations in 1962...it quickly intensified. So by the time the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed on August 10, 1964, we had been engaging the enemy for over 2 years. I don't think I've ever heard of declaring war after the fighting has begun.
True and there were U.S. military advisors in Viet Nam even back in the 50's. Of course the whole Viet Nam fiasco was wrong from the get-go. I was merely saying that there was a resolution.
We agree on this one. I have gone on record as saying that I would not favor an Iraq attack without the authorization of the Senate.
